info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Herchel Jacks: "It appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple"
190 views
Skip to first unread message
Gil Jesus
Dec 2, 2023, 7:19:54 AM12/2/23
to
JE Corbett
Dec 2, 2023, 8:00:23 AM12/2/23
to
On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 7:19:54 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11491#relPageId=85
Do you think eyewitnesses are a good source for determining direction of a gunshot when they can't see the gunman?
Bullets go really, really fast. The naked eye can't see which direction they are going. This witness saw the right side of JFK's
head open up. That gave him the impression he had been struck on that side. That is the same thing Chaney saw. Neither is
a reliable indicator of where the bullet actually struck. That's why we have medical examiners. They can determine by
examining the wounds whether they are entrance wounds or exit wounds. The original prosectors determined that the
headshot struck JFK in the back of the head. The HSCA FPP were unanimous in confirming that finding. More recently,
Boston neuropathologist Dr. Peter Cummings was granted access to the autopsy photos and x-rays and reached the same
conclusion.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=boston%20neuro-pathologist%20who%20reviewed%20jfk%20autopsy&mid=C951587E81C979356CF6C951587E81C979356CF6&ajaxhist=0
This is how forensic medical professionals are able to distinguish entrance wounds from exit wounds. The two have very
different characteristics.
Now list all of the forensic medical professionals who share your opinion that JFK was struck in the right side of the head.
I suspect this will be a very short list, as in non-existent.
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11491#relPageId=85
Do you think eyewitnesses are a good source for determining direction of a gunshot when they can't see the gunman?
Bullets go really, really fast. The naked eye can't see which direction they are going. This witness saw the right side of JFK's
head open up. That gave him the impression he had been struck on that side. That is the same thing Chaney saw. Neither is
a reliable indicator of where the bullet actually struck. That's why we have medical examiners. They can determine by
examining the wounds whether they are entrance wounds or exit wounds. The original prosectors determined that the
headshot struck JFK in the back of the head. The HSCA FPP were unanimous in confirming that finding. More recently,
Boston neuropathologist Dr. Peter Cummings was granted access to the autopsy photos and x-rays and reached the same
conclusion.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=boston%20neuro-pathologist%20who%20reviewed%20jfk%20autopsy&mid=C951587E81C979356CF6C951587E81C979356CF6&ajaxhist=0
This is how forensic medical professionals are able to distinguish entrance wounds from exit wounds. The two have very
different characteristics.
Now list all of the forensic medical professionals who share your opinion that JFK was struck in the right side of the head.
I suspect this will be a very short list, as in non-existent.
Steven Galbraith
Dec 2, 2023, 9:23:01 AM12/2/23
to
He also said this:
Jacks: "I just had completed the turn when I felt a blast which appeared to be a rifle shot that come from behind me...." He said he then turned and looked up to the TSBD but couldn't see anything.
Question: "What about these people who think the shots came from this grassy knoll area? Would you agree with that at all.."
Jacks: No sir, I heard three shots and could feel the concussion from them..."
So he heard/felt a concussion from three shots all coming from behind him. Not four, five or six shots from different locations. None from the grassy knoll or underpass. All from behind him. Three. If the conspiracists want to use his account of what happened they are not thinking clearly. Again.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWtlZ3ismvI
Gil Jesus
Dec 2, 2023, 12:35:53 PM12/2/23
to
On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 9:23:01 AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> So he sees a wound on the right side of the head but no wound in the back/rear? Where's the wound in the back of his head? The conspiracy claim is that the back of JFK's head was blown out by a bullet. Where does he see this?
Well, I guess if HE didn't see it, then it didn't exist.
> So he sees a wound on the right side of the head but no wound in the back/rear? Where's the wound in the back of his head? The conspiracy claim is that the back of JFK's head was blown out by a bullet. Where does he see this?
But what about the 40 witnesses who told the HSCA that they DID see a wound at the back of the head ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/40-witnesses.png
What about the autopsy report that describes, "a large irregular defect" that extends, "somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions". ( 16 H 980 )
Where is the "occipital region" of the skull located, Professor ?
And where is the "large irregular defect" in that region depicted in this autopsy photo ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
And why is the contour of the back of the head in that photo perfect, not showing any signs of missing bone ?
Professor ?
JE Corbett
Dec 2, 2023, 4:03:08 PM12/2/23
to
On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 12:35:53 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 9:23:01 AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> > So he sees a wound on the right side of the head but no wound in the back/rear? Where's the wound in the back of his head? The conspiracy claim is that the back of JFK's head was blown out by a bullet. Where does he see this?
> Well, I guess if HE didn't see it, then it didn't exist.
>
> But what about the 40 witnesses who told the HSCA that they DID see a wound at the back of the head ?
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/40-witnesses.png
>
> What about the autopsy report that describes, "a large irregular defect" that extends, "somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions". ( 16 H 980 )
> Where is the "occipital region" of the skull located, Professor ?
Why did you leave out the part about the defect being "chiefly parietal", dunce. Do you even know where the parietal bone is?
> On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 9:23:01 AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> > So he sees a wound on the right side of the head but no wound in the back/rear? Where's the wound in the back of his head? The conspiracy claim is that the back of JFK's head was blown out by a bullet. Where does he see this?
> Well, I guess if HE didn't see it, then it didn't exist.
>
> But what about the 40 witnesses who told the HSCA that they DID see a wound at the back of the head ?
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/40-witnesses.png
>
> What about the autopsy report that describes, "a large irregular defect" that extends, "somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions". ( 16 H 980 )
> Where is the "occipital region" of the skull located, Professor ?
>
> And where is the "large irregular defect" in that region depicted in this autopsy photo ?
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
Here's where Giltardo plays doctor and pretends he knows so much more than the original autopsy team who actually saw
> And where is the "large irregular defect" in that region depicted in this autopsy photo ?
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
the body and a panel of the best medical examiners in the country who saw ALL the photos and x-rays.
> And why is the contour of the back of the head in that photo perfect, not showing any signs of missing bone ?
> Professor ?
be moved around in different configurations. At one point during the procedured the scalp and face were peeled completely
off the bone. What we see in the photos is the scalp having been pulled up over the defect in the skull.
Once again Giltardo tries to make a point by raising a question and fails miserably. You need to find the answers, Giltardo.
Raising questions proves nothing.
Gil Jesus
Dec 3, 2023, 4:07:22 AM12/3/23
to
On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 4:03:08 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
< silly comments and insults which were automatically deleted >
Over 40 witnesses told the HSCA that they DID see a wound at the back of the head.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/40-witnesses.png
The autopsy report that describes, "a large irregular defect" that extends, "somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions". ( 16 H 980 )
Where is the "occipital region" of the skull located ?
And where is the "large irregular defect" in that occipital region depicted in this autopsy photo ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
Name one person who saw the throat wound BEFORE the tracheostomy was done and described it conclusively as an exit wound.
Tells us why the Dallas doctors were not qualified to identify an entrance wound.
Will you answer these questions or will you continue to run from them ?
< silly comments and insults which were automatically deleted >
Over 40 witnesses told the HSCA that they DID see a wound at the back of the head.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/40-witnesses.png
The autopsy report that describes, "a large irregular defect" that extends, "somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions". ( 16 H 980 )
Where is the "occipital region" of the skull located ?
And where is the "large irregular defect" in that occipital region depicted in this autopsy photo ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
Name one person who saw the throat wound BEFORE the tracheostomy was done and described it conclusively as an exit wound.
Tells us why the Dallas doctors were not qualified to identify an entrance wound.
Will you answer these questions or will you continue to run from them ?
JE Corbett
Dec 3, 2023, 8:36:02 AM12/3/23
to
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/h8dDOpg537w/m/oG5Dhu_RAAAJ
Message has been deleted
NoTrueFlags Here
Dec 3, 2023, 12:39:53 PM12/3/23
to
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 12:28:46 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> This is about all I need: https://tinyurl.com/mse5hwb4
> Zero evidence here, none, of a large exit wound in the back of the head. As Jacks said, the wound appeared, for him, to be above the ear.
Hilarious! The Nutters prefer Herschel Jack's description of the wound to that of the doctors who actually treated JFK. Does a single Nutter have any integrity?
> Zero evidence here, none, of a large exit wound in the back of the head. As Jacks said, the wound appeared, for him, to be above the ear.
Hilarious! The Nutters prefer Herschel Jack's description of the wound to that of the doctors who actually treated JFK. Does a single Nutter have any integrity?
Gil Jesus
Dec 3, 2023, 2:30:54 PM12/3/23
to
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 12:39:53 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> Hilarious! The Nutters prefer Herschel Jack's description of the wound to that of the doctors who actually treated JFK. Does a single Nutter have any integrity?
You know, these fucking assholes make me laugh.
> Hilarious! The Nutters prefer Herschel Jack's description of the wound to that of the doctors who actually treated JFK. Does a single Nutter have any integrity?
They come in here touting the "expertise" of the "forensic pathological experts" at Bethesda over the observations of the doctors at Parkland Hospital.
But when those same "experts" write an autopsy report that says that there was a head wound that extended into the "occipital region", and when those same "experts" tell the HSCA that there was a wound at the rear of the head, all of a sudden they're not the real experts.
The REAL expert on the head wound was the guy who drove LBJ's convertible.
ROFLMAO.
What a bunch of fucking assholes.
JE Corbett
Dec 3, 2023, 4:33:33 PM12/3/23
to
ear and hand down covering his ear. Jackie had closed up the skull flaps as best she could on the drive to Parkland. As she
testfied to, she was trying to keep his brain inside his head. The team at Parkland never saw the true extent of the skull
defect because they never attempted to treat it. They had to know it was a hopeless situation.
NoTrueFlags Here
Dec 3, 2023, 4:58:13 PM12/3/23
to
JE Corbett
Dec 3, 2023, 8:03:53 PM12/3/23
to
Harper fragment which detached from the scalp and was blown completely away. I've read lots of arguments about exactly
where the Harper fragment came from but haven't found anything definitive. Most of the opinions I've read is that it came
from the occipital bone. This would make sense because that would create the impression among the ER staff that there
was a gaping hole in the back of the head. The reality is that hole was the rear portion of a much larger defect that extended
along the parietal bone and into the temporal bone. Had the Parkland staff ever closely examined the head wound, they would
have discovered its true extent.
NoTrueFlags Here
Dec 4, 2023, 1:21:56 AM12/4/23
to
Gil Jesus
Dec 4, 2023, 6:53:29 AM12/4/23
to
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 1:21:56 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> Hilarious! Nutters have ZERO integrity. They will say that Jackie just slapped JFK's head together so well that the doctors at Parkland couldn't see a gaping wound in his head. All to defend their Stupid Bullet Theory!
The "forensic pathological experts" wrote in their autopsy report that there was a wound that extended into the "occipital region".
> Hilarious! Nutters have ZERO integrity. They will say that Jackie just slapped JFK's head together so well that the doctors at Parkland couldn't see a gaping wound in his head. All to defend their Stupid Bullet Theory!
They measured the wound at 13 cm. ( a little over 5 inches ) at its widest point.
It's all on page 3 of the autopsy report.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/rear-exit-wound.jpg
THE NUTTERS ARE SO FUCKED UP IN THE HEAD, THEY'LL ARGUE AGAINST WHAT THEIR OWN EVIDENCE SAYS.
The autopsy report also describes the examination of skull fragments, the largest of which exhibited, "bevelling on the outer aspect of the bone." ( 16 H 981 )
The bevelling on the surface of bone is indicative of an exiting bullet. If the bevelling was on the inner aspect ( surface ) , it would mean a wound of entry.
But because it was on the outer aspect, ( the outside surface ) the bevelling they saw was from a exiting bullet.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/bevelling.jpg
Corroboration for the autopsists' description of a gaping rear wound comes from the Dallas doctors:
Dr. Marion Jenkins told the HSCA that, a portion of the cerebellum was hanging out from A HOLE IN THE RIGHT REAR OF THE HEAD. ( 7 HSCA 287 )
Dr. Charles Carrico described it as a "LARGE GAPING WOUND LOCATED IN THE RIGHT OCCIPITOPARIETAL AREA". ( 6 H 6 )
Dr. Ronald Jones testified that the wound he saw, "appeared to be AN EXIT WOUND IN THE POSTERIOR PORTION OF THE SKULL." ( 6 H 56 )
Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who probably was the non-medical person who got best look at the head wound, described what he saw.
"I noticed a portion of the President's head ON THE RIGHT REAR SIDE WAS MISSING..... I saw A PART OF HIS SKULL with hair on it LYING IN THE SEAT." ( 18 H 742 )
Even the Warren Commission's own Report admitted that the head shot, "removed a portion of the President's head." ( pg. 51 )
Yet the autopsy photos show no indication that any portion of the President's head was ever missing. There is no interuption in the contour of the skull.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
Herchel Jacks' description of the wound he saw was that of an ENTRY WOUND.
"It appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/hurchel-jacks.png
How any idiot, claiming to be a college professor who teaches a course on the assassination, could interpret that as saying it was an exit wound is beyond me.
But then again, the Nutters are a special kind of idiot.
Jacks' description of a bullet striking the President "above the right ear or near the temple" is corroborated by other witnesses.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/frontal-shot.mp4
JE Corbett
Dec 4, 2023, 6:54:22 AM12/4/23
to
JFK's right ear following the head shot. The one part of the blow out Jackie couldn't cover was the Harper fragment, believed
to be from the occipital bone. That led the ER team to believe the blowout was limited to the back of the head.
Gil Jesus
Dec 4, 2023, 7:07:41 AM12/4/23
to
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 6:54:22 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
< silly excuses without any evidence to try to explain what happened >
So the Parkland doctors completely missed a bone flap that was hanging over the President's ear.
Can I have the source for that ?
Where is the occipital bone located ? On the side of the head ?
Let's take a look:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Occipital-Bone-Location.jpg
As usual, you haven't refuted one thing I've said.
< silly excuses without any evidence to try to explain what happened >
So the Parkland doctors completely missed a bone flap that was hanging over the President's ear.
Can I have the source for that ?
Where is the occipital bone located ? On the side of the head ?
Let's take a look:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Occipital-Bone-Location.jpg
As usual, you haven't refuted one thing I've said.
JE Corbett
Dec 4, 2023, 7:37:05 AM12/4/23
to
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 6:53:29 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 1:21:56 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> > Hilarious! Nutters have ZERO integrity. They will say that Jackie just slapped JFK's head together so well that the doctors at Parkland couldn't see a gaping wound in his head. All to defend their Stupid Bullet Theory!
> The "forensic pathological experts" wrote in their autopsy report that there was a wound that extended into the "occipital region".
> They measured the wound at 13 cm. ( a little over 5 inches ) at its widest point.
Gil conveniently leaves out the part that says the defect was chiefly parietal. I wonder why.
> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 1:21:56 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> > Hilarious! Nutters have ZERO integrity. They will say that Jackie just slapped JFK's head together so well that the doctors at Parkland couldn't see a gaping wound in his head. All to defend their Stupid Bullet Theory!
> The "forensic pathological experts" wrote in their autopsy report that there was a wound that extended into the "occipital region".
> They measured the wound at 13 cm. ( a little over 5 inches ) at its widest point.
>
> It's all on page 3 of the autopsy report.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/rear-exit-wound.jpg
Is there reason you underlined occipital but not parietal or temporal. One might think you are trying to create the impression
> It's all on page 3 of the autopsy report.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/rear-exit-wound.jpg
the blowout was limited to the back of the head.
>
> THE NUTTERS ARE SO FUCKED UP IN THE HEAD, THEY'LL ARGUE AGAINST WHAT THEIR OWN EVIDENCE SAYS.
On the contrary, we look at the entire body of evidence. We don't cherry pick just the parts that support what we want to
> THE NUTTERS ARE SO FUCKED UP IN THE HEAD, THEY'LL ARGUE AGAINST WHAT THEIR OWN EVIDENCE SAYS.
believe.. We don't cherry pick occipital when we know the autopsy report said the defect was chiefly in the parietal bone and
the temporal bone as well. That tells blowout extended all along the upper right side of JFK's skull.
>
> The autopsy report also describes the examination of skull fragments, the largest of which exhibited, "bevelling on the outer aspect of the bone." ( 16 H 981 )
> The bevelling on the surface of bone is indicative of an exiting bullet. If the bevelling was on the inner aspect ( surface ) , it would mean a wound of entry.
> But because it was on the outer aspect, ( the outside surface ) the bevelling they saw was from a exiting bullet.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/bevelling.jpg
Of course, Giltardo doesn't quote the autopsy report because that tells a completely opposite story from the one Giltardo is
> The autopsy report also describes the examination of skull fragments, the largest of which exhibited, "bevelling on the outer aspect of the bone." ( 16 H 981 )
> The bevelling on the surface of bone is indicative of an exiting bullet. If the bevelling was on the inner aspect ( surface ) , it would mean a wound of entry.
> But because it was on the outer aspect, ( the outside surface ) the bevelling they saw was from a exiting bullet.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/bevelling.jpg
pushing:
"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."
Notice it says the beveling is seen "when viewed from the INNER(emphasis mine) aspect of the skull."
>
> Corroboration for the autopsists' description of a gaping rear wound comes from the Dallas doctors:
>
> Dr. Marion Jenkins told the HSCA that, a portion of the cerebellum was hanging out from A HOLE IN THE RIGHT REAR OF THE HEAD. ( 7 HSCA 287 )
He is describing the hole left by Harper fragment. He seems unaware of a flap of skull that covered JFK's right ear following
> Corroboration for the autopsists' description of a gaping rear wound comes from the Dallas doctors:
>
> Dr. Marion Jenkins told the HSCA that, a portion of the cerebellum was hanging out from A HOLE IN THE RIGHT REAR OF THE HEAD. ( 7 HSCA 287 )
the headshot. How could any of them have missed that unless Jackie had closed that flap on drive to Parkland?
> Dr. Charles Carrico described it as a "LARGE GAPING WOUND LOCATED IN THE RIGHT OCCIPITOPARIETAL AREA". ( 6 H 6 )
parietal bones.
> Dr. Ronald Jones testified that the wound he saw, "appeared to be AN EXIT WOUND IN THE POSTERIOR PORTION OF THE SKULL." ( 6 H 56 )
>
> Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who probably was the non-medical person who got best look at the head wound, described what he saw.
> "I noticed a portion of the President's head ON THE RIGHT REAR SIDE WAS MISSING..... I saw A PART OF HIS SKULL with hair on it LYING IN THE SEAT." ( 18 H 742 )
and the bone Hill saw did not.
>
> Even the Warren Commission's own Report admitted that the head shot, "removed a portion of the President's head." ( pg. 51 )
Mainly the Harper fragment.
> Even the Warren Commission's own Report admitted that the head shot, "removed a portion of the President's head." ( pg. 51 )
>
> Yet the autopsy photos show no indication that any portion of the President's head was ever missing. There is no interuption in the contour of the skull.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
Here's where Giltardo plays doctor and pretends by looking at one photo he can reach a better conclusion than a panel of the
> Yet the autopsy photos show no indication that any portion of the President's head was ever missing. There is no interuption in the contour of the skull.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
top medical examiners in the country who saw all the photos and x-rays.
Do you see that flap of skull on the right side, Giltardo? Why do you suppose no one at Parkland noticed it. Does that flap
indicate to you the blowout was NOT limited to the back of the head?
>
> Herchel Jacks' description of the wound he saw was that of an ENTRY WOUND.
> "It appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple".
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/hurchel-jacks.png
>
> How any idiot, claiming to be a college professor who teaches a course on the assassination, could interpret that as saying it was an exit wound is beyond me.
Only an idiot would rely on the observations of a driver two cars behind the limo to determine where the bullet struck and
> How any idiot, claiming to be a college professor who teaches a course on the assassination, could interpret that as saying it was an exit wound is beyond me.
ignore the autopsy conclusion. But as long as we're relying on Hurchel Jacks, let's look at what else he said:
"At that time I heard a shot ring out which appeared to come from the right rear of the Vice President's car."
> But then again, the Nutters are a special kind of idiot.
>
> Jacks' description of a bullet striking the President "above the right ear or near the temple" is corroborated by other witnesses.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/frontal-shot.mp4
can only describe what they saw. The can't see what direction a bullet is traveling. The most visible portion of JFK's head
wound was the skull flap we see in the Z-film. That is what the witnesses saw and that is why many believed that is where
the bullet struck. That skull flap is not an entrance wound. It is the result of the skull being completely shattered by the
impact of the bullet and pressure cavity that built up in the wake of the transiting bullet. This pressure resulted in an
explosive wound along the upper right side of JFK's head.
JE Corbett
Dec 4, 2023, 7:44:30 AM12/4/23
to
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 7:07:41 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 6:54:22 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> < silly excuses without any evidence to try to explain what happened >
>
> So the Parkland doctors completely missed a bone flap that was hanging over the President's ear.
> Can I have the source for that ?
You make it too easy. It's the photo you provided.
> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 6:54:22 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> < silly excuses without any evidence to try to explain what happened >
>
> So the Parkland doctors completely missed a bone flap that was hanging over the President's ear.
> Can I have the source for that ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
Can you see that skull flap on the right side of JFK's head? Did any of the Parkland doctors you have cited make any mention
of seeing that flap? Do you have any explanation for why none of them would have mentioned that?
>
> Where is the occipital bone located ? On the side of the head ?
> Let's take a look:
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Occipital-Bone-Location.jpg
Why do you continue to pretend the blowout was limited to the occipital bone. Do you think that skull flap ON THE SIDE OF
> Where is the occipital bone located ? On the side of the head ?
> Let's take a look:
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Occipital-Bone-Location.jpg
THE HEAD is from the occipital bone?
>
> As usual, you haven't refuted one thing I've said.
I just did. AGAIN!!!
> As usual, you haven't refuted one thing I've said.
Gil Jesus
Dec 4, 2023, 7:47:51 AM12/4/23
to
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 7:37:05 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> That skull flap is not an entrance wound. It is the result of the skull being completely shattered by the
> impact of the bullet and pressure cavity that built up in the wake of the transiting bullet. This pressure resulted in an
> explosive wound along the upper right side of JFK's head.
Show us that skull flap hanging down over the ear in this photo:
> That skull flap is not an entrance wound. It is the result of the skull being completely shattered by the
> impact of the bullet and pressure cavity that built up in the wake of the transiting bullet. This pressure resulted in an
> explosive wound along the upper right side of JFK's head.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
Gil Jesus
Dec 4, 2023, 8:00:24 AM12/4/23
to
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 7:47:51 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 7:37:05 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > That skull flap is not an entrance wound. It is the result of the skull being completely shattered by the
> > impact of the bullet and pressure cavity that built up in the wake of the transiting bullet. This pressure resulted in an
> > explosive wound along the upper right side of JFK's head.
The difference between you and I is that I can prove what I say and you can't.
> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 7:37:05 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > That skull flap is not an entrance wound. It is the result of the skull being completely shattered by the
> > impact of the bullet and pressure cavity that built up in the wake of the transiting bullet. This pressure resulted in an
> > explosive wound along the upper right side of JFK's head.
You make up a lot of shit that isn't true.
Show us that skull flap hanging down over the ear in this photo:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/suprof.jpg
Let's see a photograph of that skull flap hanging down over the ear.
JE Corbett
Dec 4, 2023, 8:02:35 AM12/4/23
to
as it would when JFK as upright. You can clearly see that flap in any of the frames immediately following 313. It helps if you
enlarge the frames, but it can clearly be seen without enlarging it. This flap is what led Bill Newman to believe JFK's right
ear had been blown off.
That flap is clearly seen in both the autopsy photo and the Z-film. There is no doubt that flap was blown open by the headshot.
Can you think of a reason why none of the ER team made any mention of such an obvious wound on the upper right side of
JFK's head or are you going to continue to ignore that inconvenient truth?
JE Corbett
Dec 4, 2023, 8:22:18 AM12/4/23
to
https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z320.jpg
The skull flap hanging down over top portion of JFK's ear. It does not completely obscure the ear. It is easy to see why Bill
Newman standing above and to the side of JFK's head when the shot struck would have had the impression his right ear had been blown off.
We can quibble over just how low that flap was hanging but there can be no doubt of its existence. It shows up in every Z-frame
immediately following the head shot and in the autopsy photos. It is also clearly on the side of JFK's head confirming that
the blowout was not limited to the occipital bone. It was mainly in the parietal bone but extended into both the occipital
and temporal bones. The temporal bone is around the ear.
A description of the temporal bone:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326929#what-are-the-temporal-bones
And and image:
https://healthjade.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/temporal-bone.jpg
Giltardo, do you still want to argue that the blowout was limited to the occipital bone?
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 10:45:51 AM12/4/23
to
On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 05:00:21 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 7:19:54?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11491#relPageId=85
>
>Do you think eyewitnesses are a good source...
You just got through bragging that you apply common sense to
evidence... but here we see that you actually simply run from it.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 7:19:54?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11491#relPageId=85
>
You just got through bragging that you apply common sense to
evidence... but here we see that you actually simply run from it.
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 10:47:24 AM12/4/23
to
On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 06:22:59 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>So he sees a wound on the right side of the head but no wound in the back/rear?
Can you name this logical fallacy?
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>So he sees a wound on the right side of the head but no wound in the back/rear?
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 10:49:26 AM12/4/23
to
On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 13:03:06 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 12:35:53?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> And where is the "large irregular defect" in that region depicted in this autopsy photo ?
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> And why is the contour of the back of the head in that photo perfect, not showing any signs of missing bone ?
>> Professor ?
>
>Giltardo can't figure out ...
Corbutt ran again... like the coward he is.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 12:35:53?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 9:23:01?AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>> > So he sees a wound on the right side of the head but no wound in the back/rear? Where's the wound in the back of his head? The conspiracy claim is that the back of JFK's head was blown out by a bullet. Where does he see this?
>> Well, I guess if HE didn't see it, then it didn't exist.
>>
>> But what about the 40 witnesses who told the HSCA that they DID see a wound at the back of the head ?
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/40-witnesses.png
>>
>> What about the autopsy report that describes, "a large irregular defect" that extends, "somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions". ( 16 H 980 )
>> Where is the "occipital region" of the skull located, Professor ?
>
>Why did you leave out the part about the defect being "chiefly parietal", dunce. Do you even know where the parietal bone is?
Why did you run from the question?
>> > So he sees a wound on the right side of the head but no wound in the back/rear? Where's the wound in the back of his head? The conspiracy claim is that the back of JFK's head was blown out by a bullet. Where does he see this?
>> Well, I guess if HE didn't see it, then it didn't exist.
>>
>> But what about the 40 witnesses who told the HSCA that they DID see a wound at the back of the head ?
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/40-witnesses.png
>>
>> What about the autopsy report that describes, "a large irregular defect" that extends, "somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions". ( 16 H 980 )
>> Where is the "occipital region" of the skull located, Professor ?
>
>Why did you leave out the part about the defect being "chiefly parietal", dunce. Do you even know where the parietal bone is?
>> And where is the "large irregular defect" in that region depicted in this autopsy photo ?
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
>> And why is the contour of the back of the head in that photo perfect, not showing any signs of missing bone ?
>> Professor ?
>
Corbutt ran again... like the coward he is.
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 10:50:13 AM12/4/23
to
On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 05:36:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 4:07:22?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
You're lying again, Corbutt.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 4:07:22?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 4:03:08?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> < silly comments and insults which were automatically deleted >
>>
>> Over 40 witnesses told the HSCA that they DID see a wound at the back of the head.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/40-witnesses.png
>>
>> The autopsy report that describes, "a large irregular defect" that extends, "somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions". ( 16 H 980 )
>> Where is the "occipital region" of the skull located ?
>>
>> And where is the "large irregular defect" in that occipital region depicted in this autopsy photo ?
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
>>
>> Name one person who saw the throat wound BEFORE the tracheostomy was done and described it conclusively as an exit wound.
>>
>> Tells us why the Dallas doctors were not qualified to identify an entrance wound.
>>
>> Will you answer these questions or will you continue to run from them ?
>
>I gave you the answers...
>> < silly comments and insults which were automatically deleted >
>>
>> Over 40 witnesses told the HSCA that they DID see a wound at the back of the head.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/40-witnesses.png
>>
>> The autopsy report that describes, "a large irregular defect" that extends, "somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions". ( 16 H 980 )
>> Where is the "occipital region" of the skull located ?
>>
>> And where is the "large irregular defect" in that occipital region depicted in this autopsy photo ?
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
>>
>> Name one person who saw the throat wound BEFORE the tracheostomy was done and described it conclusively as an exit wound.
>>
>> Tells us why the Dallas doctors were not qualified to identify an entrance wound.
>>
>> Will you answer these questions or will you continue to run from them ?
>
You're lying again, Corbutt.
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 10:52:42 AM12/4/23
to
On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 09:28:44 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 8:36:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 4:07:22?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 8:36:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 4:07:22?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>This is about all I need: https://tinyurl.com/mse5hwb4
>Zero evidence here, none, of a large exit wound in the back of the head. As Jacks said, the wound appeared, for him, to be above the ear.
Can you show who's head that is? No speculation now...
>Zero evidence here, none, of a large exit wound in the back of the head. As Jacks said, the wound appeared, for him, to be above the ear.
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 10:53:35 AM12/4/23
to
On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 13:33:31 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 2:30:54?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 2:30:54?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 12:39:53?PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>>> Hilarious! The Nutters prefer Herschel Jack's description of the wound to that of the doctors who actually treated JFK. Does a single Nutter have any integrity?
>> You know, these fucking assholes make me laugh.
>> They come in here touting the "expertise" of the "forensic pathological experts" at Bethesda over the observations of the doctors at Parkland Hospital.
>> But when those same "experts" write an autopsy report that says that there was a head wound that extended into the "occipital region", and when those same "experts" tell the HSCA that there was a wound at the rear of the head, all of a sudden they're not the real experts.
>>
>> The REAL expert on the head wound was the guy who drove LBJ's convertible.
>> ROFLMAO.
>>
>> What a bunch of fucking assholes.
>
>The best description of the head wound came from Zapruder's camera.
You're lying again.
>>> Hilarious! The Nutters prefer Herschel Jack's description of the wound to that of the doctors who actually treated JFK. Does a single Nutter have any integrity?
>> You know, these fucking assholes make me laugh.
>> They come in here touting the "expertise" of the "forensic pathological experts" at Bethesda over the observations of the doctors at Parkland Hospital.
>> But when those same "experts" write an autopsy report that says that there was a head wound that extended into the "occipital region", and when those same "experts" tell the HSCA that there was a wound at the rear of the head, all of a sudden they're not the real experts.
>>
>> The REAL expert on the head wound was the guy who drove LBJ's convertible.
>> ROFLMAO.
>>
>> What a bunch of fucking assholes.
>
>The best description of the head wound came from Zapruder's camera.
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 10:54:18 AM12/4/23
to
On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 17:03:51 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why? All she had to do was close the flaps that opened up when the exploded. The one thing she couldn't close was the
>Harper fragment which detached from the scalp and was blown completely away. I've read lots of arguments about exactly
>where the Harper fragment came from but haven't found anything definitive. Most of the opinions I've read is that it came
>from the occipital bone. This would make sense because that would create the impression among the ER staff that there
>was a gaping hole in the back of the head. The reality is that hole was the rear portion of a much larger defect that extended
>along the parietal bone and into the temporal bone. Had the Parkland staff ever closely examined the head wound, they would
>have discovered its true extent.
You're lying again...
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why? All she had to do was close the flaps that opened up when the exploded. The one thing she couldn't close was the
>Harper fragment which detached from the scalp and was blown completely away. I've read lots of arguments about exactly
>where the Harper fragment came from but haven't found anything definitive. Most of the opinions I've read is that it came
>from the occipital bone. This would make sense because that would create the impression among the ER staff that there
>was a gaping hole in the back of the head. The reality is that hole was the rear portion of a much larger defect that extended
>along the parietal bone and into the temporal bone. Had the Parkland staff ever closely examined the head wound, they would
>have discovered its true extent.
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 11:01:33 AM12/4/23
to
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 04:37:02 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 6:53:29?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
keeps slapping him with.
>> It's all on page 3 of the autopsy report.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/rear-exit-wound.jpg
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> THE NUTTERS ARE SO FUCKED UP IN THE HEAD, THEY'LL ARGUE AGAINST WHAT THEIR OWN EVIDENCE SAYS.
>
>On the contrary, we look at the entire body of evidence.
And can't see the contradictions - or even admit that they exist.
> We don't cherry pick just the parts that support what we want to
>believe...
Provably a lie.
>> The autopsy report also describes the examination of skull fragments, the largest of which exhibited, "bevelling on the outer aspect of the bone." ( 16 H 981 )
>> The bevelling on the surface of bone is indicative of an exiting bullet. If the bevelling was on the inner aspect ( surface ) , it would mean a wound of entry.
>> But because it was on the outer aspect, ( the outside surface ) the bevelling they saw was from a exiting bullet.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/bevelling.jpg
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> Corroboration for the autopsists' description of a gaping rear wound comes from the Dallas doctors:
>>
>> Dr. Marion Jenkins told the HSCA that, a portion of the cerebellum was hanging out from A HOLE IN THE RIGHT REAR OF THE HEAD. ( 7 HSCA 287 )
>
>He is describing the hole...
Where?
>> Dr. Charles Carrico described it as a "LARGE GAPING WOUND LOCATED IN THE RIGHT OCCIPITOPARIETAL AREA". ( 6 H 6 )
>
>He is likely...
Describing a wound located WHERE?
>> Dr. Ronald Jones testified that the wound he saw, "appeared to be AN EXIT WOUND IN THE POSTERIOR PORTION OF THE SKULL." ( 6 H 56 )
>>
>> Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who probably was the non-medical person who got best look at the head wound, described what he saw.
>> "I noticed a portion of the President's head ON THE RIGHT REAR SIDE WAS MISSING..... I saw A PART OF HIS SKULL with hair on it LYING IN THE SEAT." ( 18 H 742 )
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> Even the Warren Commission's own Report admitted that the head shot, "removed a portion of the President's head." ( pg. 51 )
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> Yet the autopsy photos show no indication that any portion of the President's head was ever missing. There is no interuption in the contour of the skull.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> Herchel Jacks' description of the wound he saw was that of an ENTRY WOUND.
>> "It appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple".
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/hurchel-jacks.png
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> How any idiot, claiming to be a college professor who teaches a course on the assassination, could interpret that as saying it was an exit wound is beyond me.
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> But then again, the Nutters are a special kind of idiot.
>>
>> Jacks' description of a bullet striking the President "above the right ear or near the temple" is corroborated by other witnesses.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/frontal-shot.mp4
>
>Explain why an eyewitness account is a better way of determining the direction of a gunshot than an autopsy...
Because you don't even believe the Autopsy Report.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 6:53:29?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 1:21:56?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>> > Hilarious! Nutters have ZERO integrity. They will say that Jackie just slapped JFK's head together so well that the doctors at Parkland couldn't see a gaping wound in his head. All to defend their Stupid Bullet Theory!
>> The "forensic pathological experts" wrote in their autopsy report that there was a wound that extended into the "occipital region".
>> They measured the wound at 13 cm. ( a little over 5 inches ) at its widest point.
Logical fallacy deleted. Coirbutt is TERRIFED of the evidence Gil
>> > Hilarious! Nutters have ZERO integrity. They will say that Jackie just slapped JFK's head together so well that the doctors at Parkland couldn't see a gaping wound in his head. All to defend their Stupid Bullet Theory!
>> The "forensic pathological experts" wrote in their autopsy report that there was a wound that extended into the "occipital region".
>> They measured the wound at 13 cm. ( a little over 5 inches ) at its widest point.
keeps slapping him with.
>> It's all on page 3 of the autopsy report.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/rear-exit-wound.jpg
>> THE NUTTERS ARE SO FUCKED UP IN THE HEAD, THEY'LL ARGUE AGAINST WHAT THEIR OWN EVIDENCE SAYS.
>
>On the contrary, we look at the entire body of evidence.
> We don't cherry pick just the parts that support what we want to
Provably a lie.
>> The autopsy report also describes the examination of skull fragments, the largest of which exhibited, "bevelling on the outer aspect of the bone." ( 16 H 981 )
>> The bevelling on the surface of bone is indicative of an exiting bullet. If the bevelling was on the inner aspect ( surface ) , it would mean a wound of entry.
>> But because it was on the outer aspect, ( the outside surface ) the bevelling they saw was from a exiting bullet.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/bevelling.jpg
>> Corroboration for the autopsists' description of a gaping rear wound comes from the Dallas doctors:
>>
>> Dr. Marion Jenkins told the HSCA that, a portion of the cerebellum was hanging out from A HOLE IN THE RIGHT REAR OF THE HEAD. ( 7 HSCA 287 )
>
Where?
>> Dr. Charles Carrico described it as a "LARGE GAPING WOUND LOCATED IN THE RIGHT OCCIPITOPARIETAL AREA". ( 6 H 6 )
>
Describing a wound located WHERE?
>> Dr. Ronald Jones testified that the wound he saw, "appeared to be AN EXIT WOUND IN THE POSTERIOR PORTION OF THE SKULL." ( 6 H 56 )
>>
>> Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who probably was the non-medical person who got best look at the head wound, described what he saw.
>> "I noticed a portion of the President's head ON THE RIGHT REAR SIDE WAS MISSING..... I saw A PART OF HIS SKULL with hair on it LYING IN THE SEAT." ( 18 H 742 )
>> Even the Warren Commission's own Report admitted that the head shot, "removed a portion of the President's head." ( pg. 51 )
>> Yet the autopsy photos show no indication that any portion of the President's head was ever missing. There is no interuption in the contour of the skull.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
>> Herchel Jacks' description of the wound he saw was that of an ENTRY WOUND.
>> "It appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple".
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/hurchel-jacks.png
>> How any idiot, claiming to be a college professor who teaches a course on the assassination, could interpret that as saying it was an exit wound is beyond me.
>> But then again, the Nutters are a special kind of idiot.
>>
>> Jacks' description of a bullet striking the President "above the right ear or near the temple" is corroborated by other witnesses.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/frontal-shot.mp4
>
Because you don't even believe the Autopsy Report.
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 11:03:42 AM12/4/23
to
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 05:02:33 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 7:47:51?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
That doesn't answer the question...
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 7:47:51?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 7:37:05?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>> That skull flap is not an entrance wound. It is the result of the skull being completely shattered by the
>>> impact of the bullet and pressure cavity that built up in the wake of the transiting bullet. This pressure resulted in an
>>> explosive wound along the upper right side of JFK's head.
>> Show us that skull flap hanging down over the ear in this photo:
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
>
>The flap is clearly visible in the photo...
>>> That skull flap is not an entrance wound. It is the result of the skull being completely shattered by the
>>> impact of the bullet and pressure cavity that built up in the wake of the transiting bullet. This pressure resulted in an
>>> explosive wound along the upper right side of JFK's head.
>> Show us that skull flap hanging down over the ear in this photo:
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
>
That doesn't answer the question...
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 11:04:46 AM12/4/23
to
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 05:22:16 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Logical fallacies deleted.
Corbutt - do you want to still deny what the evidence shows?
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Logical fallacies deleted.
Corbutt - do you want to still deny what the evidence shows?
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 11:05:20 AM12/4/23
to
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 03:54:20 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>We say that because that is what happened. That is why the Parkland doctors were unaware of the skull flap that covered
>JFK's right ear following the head shot. The one part of the blow out Jackie couldn't cover was the Harper fragment, believed
>to be from the occipital bone. That led the ER team to believe the blowout was limited to the back of the head.
Speculation isn't evidence.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>We say that because that is what happened. That is why the Parkland doctors were unaware of the skull flap that covered
>JFK's right ear following the head shot. The one part of the blow out Jackie couldn't cover was the Harper fragment, believed
>to be from the occipital bone. That led the ER team to believe the blowout was limited to the back of the head.
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 11:09:43 AM12/4/23
to
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 04:44:28 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 7:07:41?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>Can you see that skull flap on the right side of JFK's head?
Can you show a photo that preceded the pre-autopsy?
> Did any of the Parkland doctors you have cited make any mention
>of seeing that flap? Do you have any explanation for why none of them would have mentioned that?
Yes. Already given. But you're too much a coward to deal with it.
That "flap" is far more likely to have been created during the
pre-autopsy autopsy. **THAT** would explain what you've been unable
to explain.
>> Where is the occipital bone located ? On the side of the head ?
>> Let's take a look:
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Occipital-Bone-Location.jpg
>
>Why do you continue...
What part of the occipital is *NOT* located in the back of the head?
Why do you continue to run from this?
>> As usual, you haven't refuted one thing I've said.
>
>I just did. AGAIN!!!
You aren't living on planet Earth, are you?
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 7:07:41?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 6:54:22?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> < silly excuses without any evidence to try to explain what happened >
>>
>> So the Parkland doctors completely missed a bone flap that was hanging over the President's ear.
>> Can I have the source for that ?
>
>You make it too easy. It's the photo you provided.
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
Can you name this logical fallacy?
>> < silly excuses without any evidence to try to explain what happened >
>>
>> So the Parkland doctors completely missed a bone flap that was hanging over the President's ear.
>> Can I have the source for that ?
>
>You make it too easy. It's the photo you provided.
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg
>Can you see that skull flap on the right side of JFK's head?
> Did any of the Parkland doctors you have cited make any mention
>of seeing that flap? Do you have any explanation for why none of them would have mentioned that?
That "flap" is far more likely to have been created during the
pre-autopsy autopsy. **THAT** would explain what you've been unable
to explain.
>> Where is the occipital bone located ? On the side of the head ?
>> Let's take a look:
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Occipital-Bone-Location.jpg
>
What part of the occipital is *NOT* located in the back of the head?
Why do you continue to run from this?
>> As usual, you haven't refuted one thing I've said.
>
>I just did. AGAIN!!!
Gil Jesus
Dec 4, 2023, 11:28:16 AM12/4/23
to
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 8:22:18 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> Giltardo, do you still want to argue that the blowout was limited to the occipital bone?
Who said that ? I never said the wound was LIMITED to the occipital bone.
> Giltardo, do you still want to argue that the blowout was limited to the occipital bone?
I said that the wound "EXTENDED INTO the occipital region."
Why the fuck do you keep doing this to me ?
Why do you keep attributing things to me that I never said ?
Is there something wrong with you ?
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 11:35:55 AM12/4/23
to
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 08:28:15 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is really simple - Believers cannot argue with what we ACTUALLY
say - because it's supported by the evidence.
So believers have to argue against what they WISH we had said.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
say - because it's supported by the evidence.
So believers have to argue against what they WISH we had said.
Gil Jesus
Dec 4, 2023, 11:42:05 AM12/4/23
to
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 8:02:35 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> That flap is clearly seen in both the autopsy photo and the Z-film. There is no doubt that flap was blown open by the headshot.
Your "flap hanging down" is not depicted in the autopsy photos.
> That flap is clearly seen in both the autopsy photo and the Z-film. There is no doubt that flap was blown open by the headshot.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/montage-head.jpg
> Can you think of a reason why none of the ER team made any mention of such an obvious wound on the upper right side of
> JFK's head or are you going to continue to ignore that inconvenient truth?
Any problems with that, talk to the professor.
Gil Jesus
Dec 4, 2023, 11:53:43 AM12/4/23
to
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 11:35:55 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> This is really simple - Believers cannot argue with what we ACTUALLY
> say - because it's supported by the evidence.
>
> So believers have to argue against what they WISH we had said.
He says, "But the Zapruder film shows a flap."
> This is really simple - Believers cannot argue with what we ACTUALLY
> say - because it's supported by the evidence.
>
> So believers have to argue against what they WISH we had said.
The Zapruder film also shows the top front of the President's head gone and the rear intact.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/head-337.png
Which is not supported by the autopsy photos.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/montage-head.jpg
Are we to believe Zapruder or are we to believe the photos and the autopsy report ?
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 12:09:44 PM12/4/23
to
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 08:53:42 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
More importantly - not a *SINGLE* believer will publicly acknowledge
conflicts such as this in the evidence.
They simply pretend that conflicts don't exist.
Because the MOMENT they admit that there is conflicting evidence,
they'll have to explain how to best resolve these conflicts... What
caused them.
And they have no non-conspiratorial explanation that is credible.
We critics, on the other hand, RECOGNIZE and acknowledge these
conflicts, AND CAN EASILY AND CREDIBLY EXPLAIN EACH AND EVERY ONE OF
THEM.
Watch Corbutt run from this. (Huckster, Chickenshit, Chuckles, and
Von Penis too.)
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
conflicts such as this in the evidence.
They simply pretend that conflicts don't exist.
Because the MOMENT they admit that there is conflicting evidence,
they'll have to explain how to best resolve these conflicts... What
caused them.
And they have no non-conspiratorial explanation that is credible.
We critics, on the other hand, RECOGNIZE and acknowledge these
conflicts, AND CAN EASILY AND CREDIBLY EXPLAIN EACH AND EVERY ONE OF
THEM.
Watch Corbutt run from this. (Huckster, Chickenshit, Chuckles, and
Von Penis too.)
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 12:10:38 PM12/4/23
to
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 08:42:03 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
Believers just HATE you using their arguments against them...
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
JE Corbett
Dec 4, 2023, 2:36:31 PM12/4/23
to
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 11:53:43 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 11:35:55 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > This is really simple - Believers cannot argue with what we ACTUALLY
> > say - because it's supported by the evidence.
> >
> > So believers have to argue against what they WISH we had said.
> He says, "But the Zapruder film shows a flap."
> The Zapruder film also shows the top front of the President's head gone and the rear intact.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/head-337.png
Is that really how you interpret that frame? That's funny. What I see is JFK beginning to fall to his left and from Zapruder's
> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 11:35:55 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > This is really simple - Believers cannot argue with what we ACTUALLY
> > say - because it's supported by the evidence.
> >
> > So believers have to argue against what they WISH we had said.
> He says, "But the Zapruder film shows a flap."
> The Zapruder film also shows the top front of the President's head gone and the rear intact.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/head-337.png
perspective that is going to make the top of the head seem progressively smaller. The top of the head is fully visible for
roughly one second following the headshot. Nothing is missing from it. As for the back of the head defect, that would be
surrounded by his hair and that is very blurry in the frame you have chosen. I'm guessing that's why you chose that frame.
I suspect that if Zapruder's film had better resolution, we might see the defect in the back of the head but HD wasn't available
back then so we have to do with what we have.
>
> Which is not supported by the autopsy photos.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/montage-head.jpg
Why would you expect the autopsy photos to support the things you imagine?
> Which is not supported by the autopsy photos.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/montage-head.jpg
>
> Are we to believe Zapruder or are we to believe the photos and the autopsy report ?
We should believe them all. They all point to the same conclusion. The bullet fired by Oswald struck JFK in the back of the
> Are we to believe Zapruder or are we to believe the photos and the autopsy report ?
head and blew open the upper right side of his skull. That is the conclusion reached by every forensic pathologist who got to
see all the photos and x-rays. But your interpretation of a few low resolution photos that were leaked to the public should
carry more weight than their conclusions because......well, because you say so.
Do you have any idea how laughable that is?
JE Corbett
Dec 4, 2023, 2:40:15 PM12/4/23
to
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 11:42:05 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 8:02:35 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>
> > That flap is clearly seen in both the autopsy photo and the Z-film. There is no doubt that flap was blown open by the headshot.
> Your "flap hanging down" is not depicted in the autopsy photos.
That's because JFK was not sitting up during the autopsy like he was when the headshot struck. That's why we see the
> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 8:02:35 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>
> > That flap is clearly seen in both the autopsy photo and the Z-film. There is no doubt that flap was blown open by the headshot.
> Your "flap hanging down" is not depicted in the autopsy photos.
flap hanging lower in the Z-film than on the autopsy table. It's called gravity, Gil.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/montage-head.jpg
> > Can you think of a reason why none of the ER team made any mention of such an obvious wound on the upper right side of
> > JFK's head or are you going to continue to ignore that inconvenient truth?
> Well, if I'm using Professor Galbraith's form of reasoning, as he did with Herchel Jacks, since no one in the ER mentioned seeing the flap then it wasn't there.
> Any problems with that, talk to the professor.
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 3:49:30 PM12/4/23
to
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 11:36:29 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 11:53:43?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> Are we to believe Zapruder or are we to believe the photos and the autopsy report ?
>
>We should believe them all.
Not possible.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 11:53:43?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 11:35:55?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> This is really simple - Believers cannot argue with what we ACTUALLY
>>> say - because it's supported by the evidence.
>>>
>>> So believers have to argue against what they WISH we had said.
>> He says, "But the Zapruder film shows a flap."
>> The Zapruder film also shows the top front of the President's head gone and the rear intact.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/head-337.png
>
>Is that really how you interpret that frame?
That's funny.. you admit it when you said: "I suspect that if
>>> This is really simple - Believers cannot argue with what we ACTUALLY
>>> say - because it's supported by the evidence.
>>>
>>> So believers have to argue against what they WISH we had said.
>> He says, "But the Zapruder film shows a flap."
>> The Zapruder film also shows the top front of the President's head gone and the rear intact.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/head-337.png
>
>Is that really how you interpret that frame?
Zapruder's film had better resolution, we might see the defect in the
back of the head but HD wasn't available back then so we have to do
with what we have."
>> Which is not supported by the autopsy photos.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/montage-head.jpg
>
>Why would you expect the autopsy photos to support the things you imagine?
We don't. They're not true to the facts - they've been altered.
back of the head but HD wasn't available back then so we have to do
with what we have."
>> Which is not supported by the autopsy photos.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/montage-head.jpg
>
>Why would you expect the autopsy photos to support the things you imagine?
>> Are we to believe Zapruder or are we to believe the photos and the autopsy report ?
>
>We should believe them all.
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 3:51:07 PM12/4/23
to
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 11:40:13 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 11:42:05?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
Tut tut tut... you're merely agreeing with Gil.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/montage-head.jpg
>>> Can you think of a reason why none of the ER team made any mention of such an obvious wound on the upper right side of
>>> JFK's head or are you going to continue to ignore that inconvenient truth?
>> Well, if I'm using Professor Galbraith's form of reasoning, as he did with Herchel Jacks, since no one in the ER mentioned seeing the flap then it wasn't there.
>> Any problems with that, talk to the professor.
>
>Is that really the best dodge you could come up with?
Using the logic *YOU* find impecable can never be a "dodge."
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 11:42:05?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 8:02:35?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>
>>> That flap is clearly seen in both the autopsy photo and the Z-film. There is no doubt that flap was blown open by the headshot.
>> Your "flap hanging down" is not depicted in the autopsy photos.
>
>That's because....
>>
>>> That flap is clearly seen in both the autopsy photo and the Z-film. There is no doubt that flap was blown open by the headshot.
>> Your "flap hanging down" is not depicted in the autopsy photos.
>
Tut tut tut... you're merely agreeing with Gil.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/montage-head.jpg
>>> Can you think of a reason why none of the ER team made any mention of such an obvious wound on the upper right side of
>>> JFK's head or are you going to continue to ignore that inconvenient truth?
>> Well, if I'm using Professor Galbraith's form of reasoning, as he did with Herchel Jacks, since no one in the ER mentioned seeing the flap then it wasn't there.
>> Any problems with that, talk to the professor.
>
>Is that really the best dodge you could come up with?
0 new messages