45 Questions, One by One (#29)
Ben Holmes
large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo? Dr.
Mantik has reported that using stereo viewing, the "hair patch" shows 2D,
contrary to everything else, which shows in 3D. Many have noted the "wet"
appearance of the hair patch. Interestingly, the lateral X-ray also has a "white
patch" at this same location - Dr. Mantik reports that optical density
measurements of this "patch" show that JFK was a "bonehead"... solid bone all
the way across. Why is there such a distinct and common pattern among
eyewitnesses, BOH photo, and Lateral X-ray?
lazu...@webtv.net
this one. Well, I don't blame them. They can't shoot it down any better
than any of the other questions. How could they if they have no ammo?
Before this gets lost in all the sewage, I'll just chime in briefly with
my take on F8, the photo of the skull after scalp reflection. I'm
convinced that it is a genuine photo, although cropped in order to cause
confusion as to correct orientation. I believe it to be a posterior
view, and therefore it is in stark contrast to the BOH photo, yet in
complete agreement with the witness accounts of a large wound in the
right posterior of the head.
In the 1966 NARA Photograph Inventory, there is listed only one view of
the skull after scalp reflection, and it is designated as being
POSTERIOR. There are no such anterior views of the skull.
Autopsy records indicate that the scalp was reflected towards the left.
This is apparent in the photograph. The scalp was obviously peeled away
from the wound.
In the phot, most of the defect is to the right, as would be expected in
a posterior view.
Even though the photo is cropped, a tiny amount of neck with hairs is
visible in the LR, another sign that the view is posterior.
The skull defect shown in F8 is remarkably similar to the drawing made
by Paul O'Conner of the posterior defect.
There are several other points confirming the photo as being a posterior
view, but I said I was going to be brief, and I've shot my wad for
tonight.------Old Laz
Gil Jesus
F8 also shows the entry hole in the front of the skull:
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/13a0xoPwH9cxa3KrDAl1dkO-zFPhMLd0M3ERv4xQp5Fd3Ig=_l.jpg
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Ben, it looks like the LN contingent are staying away in droves from
>this one. Well, I don't blame them. They can't shoot it down any better
>than any of the other questions. How could they if they have no ammo?
That's certainly the reason.
Some LNT'ers are smart enough to not even *begin* to try... such as BurlyGuard.
:)
Others, although willing to run around shouting "kook" or "propagandist", are
too dishonest to try *supporting* their words.
>Before this gets lost in all the sewage, I'll just chime in briefly with
>my take on F8, the photo of the skull after scalp reflection. I'm
>convinced that it is a genuine photo, although cropped in order to cause
>confusion as to correct orientation. I believe it to be a posterior
>view, and therefore it is in stark contrast to the BOH photo, yet in
>complete agreement with the witness accounts of a large wound in the
>right posterior of the head.
Agreed.
>In the 1966 NARA Photograph Inventory, there is listed only one view of
>the skull after scalp reflection, and it is designated as being
>POSTERIOR. There are no such anterior views of the skull.
This *is* unexplainable by LNT'ers...
>Autopsy records indicate that the scalp was reflected towards the left.
>This is apparent in the photograph. The scalp was obviously peeled away
>from the wound.
Simply normal procedure...
>In the phot, most of the defect is to the right, as would be expected in
>a posterior view.
Yep...
>Even though the photo is cropped, a tiny amount of neck with hairs is
>visible in the LR, another sign that the view is posterior.
That's my opinion as well...
>The skull defect shown in F8 is remarkably similar to the drawing made
>by Paul O'Conner of the posterior defect.
Tis true...
>There are several other points confirming the photo as being a posterior
>view, but I said I was going to be brief, and I've shot my wad for
>tonight.------Old Laz
Another wee bit that confirms F8 as posterior is the Autopsy report, and the
over 40 eyewitnesses that LNT'ers can't refute.
Bud
lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> Ben, it looks like the LN contingent are staying away in droves from
> this one. Well, I don't blame them. They can't shoot it down any better
> than any of the other questions. How could they if they have no ammo?
It`s well known that Ben will never support his assertion that 40
people people put the wound in the same location. He lies with the
first sentence, won`t support it, and won`t even admit he won`t
support. Why don`t you help him out, OL, why don`t you list them?
Remember they have to describe the wound in the same location, no
differing accounts.
lazu...@webtv.net
"It's well-known that Ben will never support his assertions that 40
people put the wound in the same location."
Wrong! Ben has cited over forty witnesses to a large right posterior
headwound. Gary Aguilar has done so repeatedly as well. I listed 39
myself.
"He lies with the first sentence, won't support it, and won't even admit
he won't support."
I won't speak for Ben, but In my many years on this forum I've never
known him to lie or not provide supporting cites for his assertions. I
think you have it backwards, Bud. You lie and fail to support your lies.
"Why don't you help him out, OL, why don't you list them?"
I already have, and am not going to waste my time and energy on
something that you will ignore anyway----because you simply cannot deny
these witnesses' statements.
"Remember, they have to describe the wound in the same location, no
differing accounts."
They all described the wound as being located in the right
occipital-parietal region of the head. I think, if you ever check for
yourself, that theirdescriptions are remarkably similar. With a small
number of these witnesses, medical doctors, such as "Pepper" Jenkins,
for example, we should go with their earliest statements for accuracy,
not those made by the time of the WC when they realized they'd better go
along to get along, by moving the wound to the right side of the head,
but still not in front of the ear where the WC wanted it.
In your vast library of assassination literature, surely you must have
Groden's TKOAP? Since a picture is worth a thousand words, and you guys
love the photographic evidence, check out the 17 or so photos of
witnesses to the body, most of whom were medical professionals. In these
photos each witness is cupping his hand over the right rear portion of
his head, BEHIND THE EAR. Is that consistent and explicit enough for
you?
Now do a little research and see if you can locate a witness, only one,
who saw both the body and the autopsy photos, who says he (or she)
agrees with the BOH photo which shows no head damage behind the ears.
That is your assignment. If you don't wish to take it, then STFU!
-----Disrespectfully yours, Old Laz
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Bud wastes our time again:
>
>"It's well-known that Ben will never support his assertions that 40
>people put the wound in the same location."
>
>Wrong! Ben has cited over forty witnesses to a large right posterior
>headwound. Gary Aguilar has done so repeatedly as well. I listed 39
>myself.
Yep... I've provided the citation to Gary Aguilar's fine collection of actual
quotes many times in the past. Here it is again for anyone who's missed it:
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
Bud is merely lying as usual... it's one of the major reasons he was put on my
killfile list, that and refusing to support his own assertions.
The fact that this is Bud's best answer to the question itself, illustrates once
again that LNT'ers simply have no answers to the evidence other than denial.
>"He lies with the first sentence, won't support it, and won't even admit
>he won't support."
>
>I won't speak for Ben, but In my many years on this forum I've never
>known him to lie or not provide supporting cites for his assertions. I
>think you have it backwards, Bud. You lie and fail to support your lies.
Well, it would be self-serving to agree with you, right Laz? But, I do...
>"Why don't you help him out, OL, why don't you list them?"
>
>I already have, and am not going to waste my time and energy on
>something that you will ignore anyway----because you simply cannot deny
>these witnesses' statements.
Citation given above... not for the first time.
>"Remember, they have to describe the wound in the same location, no
>differing accounts."
>
>They all described the wound as being located in the right
>occipital-parietal region of the head.
Yep. Let's examine Bud's modus operendi:
Eyewitness One: "I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been
extremely blasted."
Eyewitness Two: "There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal
region..."
Bud will jump on this, and argue that these are "differing accounts", and don't
match each other. Bud might more persuasively argue that the sky is not blue.
>I think, if you ever check for
>yourself, that their descriptions are remarkably similar. With a small
>number of these witnesses, medical doctors, such as "Pepper" Jenkins,
>for example, we should go with their earliest statements for accuracy,
I wouldn't restrict this policy in *any* way. We should *ALWAYS* take earlier
statements over later statements.
LNT'ers are generally forced to do the opposite.
>not those made by the time of the WC when they realized they'd better go
>along to get along, by moving the wound to the right side of the head,
>but still not in front of the ear where the WC wanted it.
>
>In your vast library of assassination literature, surely you must have
>Groden's TKOAP? Since a picture is worth a thousand words, and you guys
>love the photographic evidence, check out the 17 or so photos of
>witnesses to the body, most of whom were medical professionals. In these
>photos each witness is cupping his hand over the right rear portion of
>his head, BEHIND THE EAR. Is that consistent and explicit enough for
>you?
Bud will argue that their hands are not in the *IDENTICAL* same place. (if he
says anything at all) Bud is simply dishonest - which is why he's killfiled.
>Now do a little research and see if you can locate a witness, only one,
>who saw both the body and the autopsy photos, who says he (or she)
>agrees with the BOH photo which shows no head damage behind the ears.
Surely you don't expect dishonest people to engage in honest research! :)
Bud
lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> Bud wastes our time again:
>
> "It's well-known that Ben will never support his assertions that 40
> people put the wound in the same location."
>
> Wrong! Ben has cited over forty witnesses to a large right posterior
> headwound.
Do they all "agree with each other", as Ben claimed? Everyone
believes there was a wound to the back of the head.
> Gary Aguilar has done so repeatedly as well. I listed 39
> myself.
Did you quote Jerrol Custer, who said "Right. And every time we
picked the head up, you could feel it. This part of the head would
come out, this part of the head would be in." What are the casual
observations to such a mess worth?
> "He lies with the first sentence, won't support it, and won't even admit
> he won't support."
>
> I won't speak for Ben, but In my many years on this forum I've never
> known him to lie or not provide supporting cites for his assertions.
That says more about you than what I said. That you and Ben draw
the same conclusions from the evidence is to be expected, but it is
most likely an opinion or assumption drawn from what he presents that
is in dispute.
> I
> think you have it backwards, Bud. You lie and fail to support your lies.
I support all my lies.
> "Why don't you help him out, OL, why don't you list them?"
>
> I already have, and am not going to waste my time and energy on
> something that you will ignore anyway----because you simply cannot deny
> these witnesses' statements.
I don`t deny them. I dispute the conclusions you draw from them.
> "Remember, they have to describe the wound in the same location, no
> differing accounts."
>
> They all described the wound as being located in the right
> occipital-parietal region of the head.
It`s deceitful to say these witnesses placed the wound in a certain
location, and that all 40 of these witnesses are in agreement on that
location. And as can be seen at this page from Paul Seaton`s site, the
prosectors also put the wound in the occipital-parietial area.
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
> I think, if you ever check for
> yourself, that theirdescriptions are remarkably similar. With a small
> number of these witnesses, medical doctors, such as "Pepper" Jenkins,
> for example, we should go with their earliest statements for accuracy,
> not those made by the time of the WC when they realized they'd better go
> along to get along, by moving the wound to the right side of the head,
> but still not in front of the ear where the WC wanted it.
Are you saying none of these witnesses saw a wound forward of the
ear on Kennedy`s head?
> In your vast library of assassination literature, surely you must have
> Groden's TKOAP? Since a picture is worth a thousand words, and you guys
> love the photographic evidence, check out the 17 or so photos of
> witnesses to the body, most of whom were medical professionals. In these
> photos each witness is cupping his hand over the right rear portion of
> his head, BEHIND THE EAR. Is that consistent and explicit enough for
> you?
How about this one, of nurse Nelson? Why wasn`t it included? How
many more were left out?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nelson.jpg
> Now do a little research and see if you can locate a witness, only one,
> who saw both the body and the autopsy photos, who says he (or she)
> agrees with the BOH photo which shows no head damage behind the ears.
Thats easy, Boswell. It`s on the same Paul Seaton page I linked to.
> That is your assignment. If you don't wish to take it, then STFU!
> -----Disrespectfully yours, Old Laz
Well, since we are disrespecting one another, I was meaning to ask
you about that stupid kid you raised. Did you keep him in a recalled
crib with nothing but Chinese-made toys to play with? Do you have him
so fucked up with your paranoid nonsense he is afraid to leave the
house, do you have to check under his bed for spooks before he can
sleep?
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <5649-470...@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net>, lazu...@webtv.net
> says...
> >
> >Bud wastes our time again:
> >
> >"It's well-known that Ben will never support his assertions that 40
> >people put the wound in the same location."
> >
> >Wrong! Ben has cited over forty witnesses to a large right posterior
> >headwound. Gary Aguilar has done so repeatedly as well. I listed 39
> >myself.
>
> Yep... I've provided the citation to Gary Aguilar's fine collection of actual
> quotes many times in the past.
They seem largely a collection of sentence fragments taken out of
context. Once again, the proper approach would be to examine the
context of the witnesses observations, how good a look they got, ect,
so you could weigh the information these witnesses provided correctly.
You won`t see much of that in Aguilar`s work.
> Here it is again for anyone who's missed it:
> http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
A misrepresenter of information quotes another misrepresenter of
information. Funny how a cite to McAdam`s cite isn`t considered a
valid rebuttal by the kooks, yet a referral to assassination science
is. And McAdams has been challenging and debunking that list for
years, putting in context and information Aguilar neglected to
include. Also, my dispute isn`t with Aguilar, it`s Ben`s claim I
challenged. Ben said the witnesses are in agreement, not Aguilar.
> Bud is merely lying as usual... it's one of the major reasons he was put on my
> killfile list, that and refusing to support his own assertions.
This has nothing to do with why you killfiled me.
> The fact that this is Bud's best answer to the question itself, illustrates once
> again that LNT'ers simply have no answers to the evidence other than denial.
No, it illustrates the dishonesty contained in the questions you
ask. You claim the witness agree with one another (when you haven`t
even shown that they are aware of what each other said), and imply
that they agree that what they presented contradicts the BOH photo,
another assertion you can`t show these witnesses making. It`s is only
your opinion that the witnesses would say their accounts conflict with
what that photo shows, you can`t show them making that claim. And as
far as any damage being seen at Parkland, Boswell wasn`t holding the
scalp up there like he said he was doing when the BOH photo was taken.
See Boswell`s testimony here...
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
> >"He lies with the first sentence, won't support it, and won't even admit
> >he won't support."
> >
> >I won't speak for Ben, but In my many years on this forum I've never
> >known him to lie or not provide supporting cites for his assertions. I
> >think you have it backwards, Bud. You lie and fail to support your lies.
>
>
> Well, it would be self-serving to agree with you, right Laz? But, I do...
You`re going to make Healy jealous, he will double his brown nosing
to get back in your good graces.
> >"Why don't you help him out, OL, why don't you list them?"
> >
> >I already have, and am not going to waste my time and energy on
> >something that you will ignore anyway----because you simply cannot deny
> >these witnesses' statements.
>
>
> Citation given above... not for the first time.
Yah, and the citation doesn`t support your claim that they all put
the wound in the same place. It`s like saying that one person putting
the east-west boundries of the United States at the Pacific-Altlantic
Oceans and another saying the Rockies and the Mississipii River are
both saying the same thing. These two people don`t agree, and it`s
misleading to say they do. IThe kooks like to claim that the witnesses
are reliable, so if that is true, the accounts should be the same.
> >"Remember, they have to describe the wound in the same location, no
> >differing accounts."
> >
> >They all described the wound as being located in the right
> >occipital-parietal region of the head.
>
> Yep.
So did the prosectors.
>Let's examine Bud's modus operendi:
>
> Eyewitness One: "I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been
> extremely blasted."
Crenshaw, the most controvesial witness. There isn`t even
agreement he was iever in a position to make any observations of the
wound.
> Eyewitness Two: "There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal
> region..."
Why didn`t Ben offer Ronald Coy Jones off Aguilar`s list, where
Aguilar offers his opinion that "JFK`s skull wound must have appeared
to him [Jones] quite posterior for him to have advanced such a
hypothesis." So, we have Aguilar`s opinion of what this witness meant
by what he said.
> Bud will jump on this, and argue that these are "differing accounts", and don't
> match each other.
Words have meanings, Ben. When you make claims like these witnesses
say the same thing, or are in agreement, you need to support these
claims, or explain to the lurkers why you cannot.
> Bud might more persuasively argue that the sky is not blue.
Or that you are not retarded.
> >I think, if you ever check for
> >yourself, that their descriptions are remarkably similar. With a small
> >number of these witnesses, medical doctors, such as "Pepper" Jenkins,
> >for example, we should go with their earliest statements for accuracy,
>
>
> I wouldn't restrict this policy in *any* way. We should *ALWAYS* take earlier
> statements over later statements.
Terrible policy. An impression popped off is often not a good as a
carefully reconstructed recollection.
> LNT'ers are generally forced to do the opposite.
I like to pick and choose.
> >not those made by the time of the WC when they realized they'd better go
> >along to get along, by moving the wound to the right side of the head,
> >but still not in front of the ear where the WC wanted it.
> >
> >In your vast library of assassination literature, surely you must have
> >Groden's TKOAP? Since a picture is worth a thousand words, and you guys
> >love the photographic evidence, check out the 17 or so photos of
> >witnesses to the body, most of whom were medical professionals. In these
> >photos each witness is cupping his hand over the right rear portion of
> >his head, BEHIND THE EAR. Is that consistent and explicit enough for
> >you?
>
>
> Bud will argue that their hands are not in the *IDENTICAL* same place. (if he
> says anything at all) Bud is simply dishonest - which is why he's killfiled.
You`ve shown my intial assertion correct, you failed to support
your claim that the witnesses agree on the location of that wound.
> >Now do a little research and see if you can locate a witness, only one,
> >who saw both the body and the autopsy photos, who says he (or she)
> >agrees with the BOH photo which shows no head damage behind the ears.
>
>
> Surely you don't expect dishonest people to engage in honest research! :)
I guess I should do my researching at assassination science, where
kooks trade tales of conspiracy.
David Von Pein
The link below shows a montage photo of several of the Parkland &
Bethesda "BOH" witnesses. From these still images, they don't all seem
to agree on the exact location on the head where they saw a large
wound:
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/old_uploads/rear_head_wound_witnesses.jpg
When looking at the above pictures of the BOH witnesses, two questions
immediately come to my mind:
1.) How in the heck could Parkland doctors Dulany and Peters have
possibly seen a big hole in the place on JFK's head where they place
it via the photos above (i.e., DEAD-CENTER in the far BACK of the
head)?
There's no way they could have possibly seen such a wound in such a
location without moving JFK's body/head considerably, which I do not
believe those doctors in question did.
2.) If Dulany and Peters (along with Riebe and Rike) are correct re.
that location of a large wound in Kennedy's head, then where in Dealey
Plaza could an assassin have possibly been located in order to have
created an exit wound where Dulany (et al) have placed it?
The Triple Overpass is about the only location in the Plaza that I can
come up with. Do any of the CT-Kooks here think that there was a gun-
toting killer right out in plain sight on the Overpass on November
22nd?
Maybe S.M. Holland or Richard Dodd or James Simmons or one of the two
policemen stationed on the Overpass pulled out a rifle and shot the
President, huh?
lazu...@webtv.net
"Everyone believes there was a wound to the back of the head."
Are you seeing the light, or trying to be facetious? Over forty people,
most of whom were medical professionals, can't all be consistently
wrong, eh what? Glad you agree.
Bud then shifted gears:
"It's deceitful to say these witnesses placed the wound in a certain
location."
How so? They were unanimous in placing the wound in the back of the
head, the variation was only a matter of centimeters, but all placed it
where the BOH photo SHOULD show a wound but doesn't. So they all agreed
on the rear location. What's your problem?
"And as can be seen from this page from Paul Seaton's site, the
prosectors also put the wound in the occipital-parietal area."
Exactly! So why are you fighting a losing battle, Bud? Do you understand
that the "occipital" area is entirely behind the ears?
Occipital-parietal means that the wound was so large that it encroached
on two regions of the head. Are you still insisting that this is somehow
a vague description of a lateral wound above and forward of the ear?
Words have meanings, and all the medical witnesses agree on the
OCCIPITAL area being involved, and to repeat, this particular area is
ENTIRELY BEHIND THE EARS.---Old Laz
Ben Holmes
says...
Going back to the original:
Bud *STILL* can't answer the question... he recognizes that "Everyone believes
there was a wound to the back of the head.", and even asserts that "the
prosectors also put the wound in the occipital-parietal area." - which, of
course, I've noted many times... but Bud *STILL* can't wrap his head around the
fact that the Autopsy Report, the eyewitnesses, indeed EVERY SINGLE SCRAP OF
INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE WE HAVE is contradicted by only one item... a BOH photo
with no chain of custody, and that no-one will state shows what they saw.
Bud still believes that E.T. is phoning home.
Bud
lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> Bud states the obvious:
>
> "Everyone believes there was a wound to the back of the head."
>
> Are you seeing the light, or trying to be facetious?
I can`t tell myself sometimes.
> Over forty people,
> most of whom were medical professionals, can't all be consistently
> wrong, eh what? Glad you agree.
Do you think there are LN who don`t believe JFK was shot in the
back of his head?
> Bud then shifted gears:
>
> "It's deceitful to say these witnesses placed the wound in a certain
> location."
>
> How so?
Ben said they agree. They don`t. He used language stronger than he
can support. He often does, it`s called misrepresenting the evidence,
he has been doing it for years, and you never noticed (nor will you be
able to discern it when I point it out to you).
> They were unanimous in placing the wound in the back of the
> head, the variation was only a matter of centimeters,
Thats not true, as this montage provided by DVP illustrates. It
might be true to say that they all put the wound in the same general
area, but they do not all agree on the location of the wound. And that
begs a second question, if eyewitness testimony is reliable, why don`t
they all put the wound in the same spot?
> but all placed it
> where the BOH photo SHOULD show a wound but doesn't. So they all agreed
> on the rear location. What's your problem?
What is the point of bringing up these witnesses? None of the
pulled back scalp to determine the extent of the missing skull, none
of them were charged with recording the details of the wounds, they
are casual observers to a complex wound. Whoever it was that said this
information (the Parkland testimony) shouldn`t be in the record was
entirely correct (except questions regarding pocedures done at
Parkland and observed at the autopsy).
> "And as can be seen from this page from Paul Seaton's site, the
> prosectors also put the wound in the occipital-parietal area."
>
> Exactly! So why are you fighting a losing battle, Bud? Do you understand
> that the "occipital" area is entirely behind the ears?
> Occipital-parietal means that the wound was so large that it encroached
> on two regions of the head. Are you still insisting that this is somehow
> a vague description of a lateral wound above and forward of the ear?
> Words have meanings, and all the medical witnesses agree on the
> OCCIPITAL area being involved, and to repeat, this particular area is
> ENTIRELY BEHIND THE EARS.--
That is where the bullet entered, why wouldn`t there be damage
there?.
-Old Laz
Bud
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> Do they all "agree with each other", as Ben claimed? Everyone believes there was a wound to the back of the head." <<<
>
> The link below shows a montage photo of several of the Parkland &
> Bethesda "BOH" witnesses. From these still images, they don't all seem
> to agree on the exact location on the head where they saw a large
> wound:
>
> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/old_uploads/rear_head_wound_witnesses.jpg
Thanks for the link, David. It does illustrate my point, that Ben
was misrepresenting the evidence by saying all these witnesses agree
on the location of the wound.
Bud
Bud did, but you can`t see the answer, because you have me
killfiled, retard.
> he recognizes that "Everyone believes
> there was a wound to the back of the head.", and even asserts that "the
> prosectors also put the wound in the occipital-parietal area." - which, of
> course, I've noted many times... but Bud *STILL* can't wrap his head around the
> fact that the Autopsy Report, the eyewitnesses, indeed EVERY SINGLE SCRAP OF
> INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE WE HAVE is contradicted by only one item... a BOH photo
> with no chain of custody, and that no-one will state shows what they saw.
Boswell did. His testimony can be found on this page....
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
> Bud still believes that E.T. is phoning home.
And Ben is still a retard and a coward. It would be an easy thing
to unkillfile me and look at my responses, but then he might be forced
to repond to the points I make.
lazu...@webtv.net
"That is where the bullet entered (the BOH), why wouldn't there be
damage there?"
Don't know much about bullet wounds, do you, Bud? I'll dumb it down for
you. Entrance holes from FMJ bullets are characteristically small, even
in the head. Exit wounds are characteristically much larger, and that is
where the damage is going to be noticed. The greatest damage to the head
was posterior, therefore the shot entered anteriorly, like night follows
day.
I'm not arguing that JFK was not shot in the back of the head---he may
very well have been, but he definitely was also shot from the front, the
bullet entering his right temple area at the hairline. This wound is
visible in the "Stare of Death" photo.-----
Old Laz, straight shooter.
Ben Holmes
says...
The original question, which Bud the troll has no answer for, is:
29. Why do over 40 eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the
Bud
lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> Bud said, as if he didn't know better:
>
> "That is where the bullet entered (the BOH), why wouldn't there be
> damage there?"
>
> Don't know much about bullet wounds, do you, Bud? I'll dumb it down for
> you.
First, what are your credentials in wound ballistics?
> Entrance holes from FMJ bullets are characteristically small, even
> in the head.
Even if the head is shattered into shards held only on by skin?
What do you suppose prosectors would do if they had damage like this,
but found no clean small hole? Assume the victim just thought real
hard, and his head exploded?
> Exit wounds are characteristically much larger, and that is
> where the damage is going to be noticed.
Apparently even by people who could not have seen the damage from
their vantage.
> The greatest damage to the head
> was posterior, therefore the shot entered anteriorly, like night follows
> day.
Like assumption follows stupidity. You`d put a lot of experts out
of work with your simplistic formula. And again, they don`t poll
casual observers to determine the details of fatal wounds, they
conduct autopsies.
aeffects
wrote:
> In article <5649-47138E3D-...@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net>, lazuli...@webtv.net
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >Bud said, as if he didn't know better:
>
> >"That is where the bullet entered (the BOH), why wouldn't there be
> >damage there?"
>
> >Don't know much about bullet wounds, do you, Bud? I'll dumb it down for
> >you. Entrance holes from FMJ bullets are characteristically small, even
> >in the head. Exit wounds are characteristically much larger, and that is
> >where the damage is going to be noticed. The greatest damage to the head
> >was posterior, therefore the shot entered anteriorly, like night follows
> >day.
>
> > I'm not arguing that JFK was not shot in the back of the head---he may
> >very well have been, but he definitely was also shot from the front, the
> >bullet entering his right temple area at the hairline. This wound is
> >visible in the "Stare of Death" photo.-----
> >Old Laz, straight shooter.
>
> The original question, which Bud the troll has no answer for, is:
>
> 29. Why do over 40 eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the
> large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo? Dr.
> Mantik has reported that using stereo viewing, the "hair patch" shows 2D,
> contrary to everything else, which shows in 3D.
for the uninitiated, the above indicates photo/film alteration
lazu...@webtv.net
"First, what are your credentials in wound ballistics?"
I don't have to be an astronomer to know the difference between a comet
and a meteorite. Also, I don't have to be a ballestician to know the
difference between a bullet entrance and exit hole. Didn't you know
that? There's plenty of literature on the subject. Check it out.
Old Laz wrote: Exit wounds are characteristically much larger and that
is where the damage is going to be noticed.
Bud retorted:
"Apparently even by people who could not have seen the damage from their
vantage (sic)."
You mean people like the Neurosurgeon, Dr. Kemp Clark, who lifted the
head and turned it so that he and others could see the full extent of
the Rt. BOH wound? Actually, in order to see most of the wound, all that
was necessary was to turn the head to the left. A simple matter.
And what about Nurse Diana Bowron, who packed the wound with gauze,
prior to the body being placed in the casket? She stated that the wound
was in the rt. BOH. Don't you think she got a good look at it?
And finally, the mortician, who, after the autopsy, repaired the large
defect in the rear of the head, plus I might add, filling in the small
entrance hoe in the rt. temple. He must have had a good look at the
wounds, don't you imagine?
There are dozens of witnesses in between which corroborate the
observations of the ones I cited.
Bud wound up his piece with this gem of prodigious reasoning:
"And again, they don't poll casual observers to determine the details of
fatal wounds, they conduct autopsies."
If you believe the above witnesses were only "casual observers", then I
can only casually observe that you are nuts!-----
Old Laz, wasting valuable time.
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
>
>Bud asked:
>
>"First, what are your credentials in wound ballistics?"
>
>I don't have to be an astronomer to know the difference between a comet
>and a meteorite. Also, I don't have to be a ballestician to know the
>difference between a bullet entrance and exit hole. Didn't you know
>that? There's plenty of literature on the subject. Check it out.
Even a nice photo compiled by the ballistics experts working for the WC.
>Old Laz wrote: Exit wounds are characteristically much larger and that
>is where the damage is going to be noticed.
Tis true... that exit wounds are characteristically much larger is what the WC
ballistics experiments demonstrated.
>Bud retorted:
>
>"Apparently even by people who could not have seen the damage from their
>vantage (sic)."
Buddy the troll *HAS* to call 'em all liars... that's the problem. His faith
can't stand alongside the actual eyewitnesses that day.
Most LNT'ers won't be that obvious about it, but that *is* what it comes down
to... LNT'ers believe that the eyewitnesses were liars, and CT'ers simply
believe those who were *there* that day.
Nothing difficult about it...
>You mean people like the Neurosurgeon, Dr. Kemp Clark, who lifted the
>head and turned it so that he and others could see the full extent of
>the Rt. BOH wound? Actually, in order to see most of the wound, all that
>was necessary was to turn the head to the left. A simple matter.
And no neuromuscular reactions to stand in the way of turning JFK's head. No
"jet effect" to keep his head pinned to the operating table...
> And what about Nurse Diana Bowron, who packed the wound with gauze,
>prior to the body being placed in the casket? She stated that the wound
>was in the rt. BOH. Don't you think she got a good look at it?
>
> And finally, the mortician, who, after the autopsy, repaired the large
>defect in the rear of the head, plus I might add, filling in the small
>entrance hoe in the rt. temple. He must have had a good look at the
>wounds, don't you imagine?
>
>There are dozens of witnesses in between which corroborate the
>observations of the ones I cited.
Virtually *ALL* the eyewitnesses who stated that they saw the wound must have
lied... for the wound simply could not have been where they *ALL* placed it
(with, as I recall, one exception)
>Bud wound up his piece with this gem of prodigious reasoning:
>
>"And again, they don't poll casual observers to determine the details of
>fatal wounds, they conduct autopsies."
But sad to say, the autopsy *also* placed the wound in the same place...
"occipital parietal" (and temporal).
So Buddy the troll, although he won't be honest enough to tell you - must ALSO
call the prosectors "liars"... although he'll probably do so by means of
calling them incompetent.
>If you believe the above witnesses were only "casual observers", then I
>can only casually observe that you are nuts!-----
>Old Laz, wasting valuable time.
It's not just the trolls... they are really only saying what the LNT'ers would
say if they had a drink or two in 'em. They *ALL* are simply a tad nuts...
dishonesty comes with that particular territory... they have no choice - the
evidence simply isn't in their favor.
And, lest we forget, the *original* question that Buddy can't answer is:
29. Why do over 40 eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the
large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo? Dr.
Mantik has reported that using stereo viewing, the "hair patch" shows 2D,
contrary to everything else, which shows in 3D. Many have noted the "wet"