Dr. Malcolm Perry and the JFK head wound

[Ray Mitcham]

You obviously have no idea concerning my opinion of the WC, if you did you'd know that I've openly stated, many times, that I believe some members of the WC were working to an agender to find Oswald to be an LN. I've also stated many times that IMO, the WR was full of mistakes. Why presumptively state other members 'opinions' if you have no idea what they actually are? The link I provided shows the " University of Washington graduate student who interviewed Moore and eventually testified at government hearings." that you referred to was in fact Gochenaur, not Dr Miller.

I read your  Gochenaur link. And I asked you why you dismiss Dr Miller's comments.

[Denis Pointing]

I read your  Gochenaur link. And I asked you why you dismiss Dr Miller's comments.

Ray, It's not a case of off-handily dismissing it. I just don't see any reason to blindly accept it without any substantial proof to back it up, same with the Alaskan doctor. Until I see proof to the contrary I'm sticking to what Dr Perry said under oath. Is that unreasonable?

[Ray Mitcham]

Ray, It's not a case of off-handily dismissing it. I just don't see any reason to blindly accept it without any substantial proof to back it up, same with the Alaskan doctor. Until I see proof to the contrary I'm sticking to what Dr Perry said under oath. Is that unreasonable?

Strange that two different surgeons each said that Perry had told them that he had changed his mind and told the W.C. that it could've been an exit wound. But then you appear to only believe unsubantiated proof when it agrees with your position.

[Denis Pointing]

Strange that two different surgeons each said that Perry had told them that he had changed his mind and told the W.C. that it could've been an exit wound. But then you appear to only believe unsubstantiated proof when it agrees with your position.

And exactly what "unsubstantiated proof" do I believe in then Ray? You really think you know me that well, do you? Are you sure you're not just being over presumptuous again? You seem to have a bad habit of doing that. If it's just a petty argument you're after go pester someone else. If you can debate like a grown-up then carry on.

[Louis Earl]

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

So ... what happened to the "right rear portion of his head" that was lying in the rear seat?  Did anyone pick it up, take it into the ER?  Asking for a friend. 

[Ray Mitcham]

And exactly what "unsubstantiated proof" do I believe in then Ray? You really think you know me that well, do you? Are you sure you're not just being over presumptuous again? You seem to have a bad habit of doing that. If it's just a petty argument you're after go pester someone else. If you can debate like a grown-up then carry on.

I did "you  appear to only believe", not that you did. As for petty arguments, perhaps it is you who is doing the pestering. You butted in on my discussion with another poster.

[Bill Chapman]

Strange that two different surgeons each said that Perry had told them that he had changed his mind and told the W.C. that it could've been an exit wound. But then you appear to only believe unsubantiated proof when it agrees with your position.

Tell us when Perry learned of the back wound.