Dotting the Eye

[David Josephs]

Jim DiEugenio, on 29 January 2012 - 10:22 AM, Education Forum , said: "As per the blown our right side, I think most of us believe there were two shots to the head: one through the right temple and one from behind. This had to result in extensive brain damage." If Jim is correct in his observation that most believe two shots struck the presidents head, why do you suppose that is? As for the dot. If you think it is a point of entry than we are back to the fact that it must have originated the area of the South Knoll. You cant' have it both ways. You can't have a shot from the front striking him in the frontal bone, and striking him in the temple. They are not the same area. Or is this what you are suggesting, that two bullets struck him from the front, one above the right eye in the area of the dot, and one in the temple just in front of the right ear? As to the pre autopsy alterations, there may be plenty of conjecture about this, but I have not seen any more "compelling evidence" for it, than I have for the rear entry wound in the occipital area. In fact I find the evidence for that more "compelling". It seems to me that if the autopsy doctors were lying about it, or just making stuff up to please their masters, they wouldn't have been so adamant about it's location. They would have gone along with the change in location so as to better fit the single shooter from behind theory, rather than resisting.

Thanks Gordon... yet I'd be interested if Jim still feels the same over a year later....

I think the shot where the Dot is... IS the only frontal shot that hits his head... the "temple" is simply a frame of reference... look where Kilduff is pointing...
Above the eye, NOT the temple which is about 2 inches to the anatomical right of his finger.... NOT that this is evidence of shot location... just that a shot to the DOT would blow out the side/back of his head just as easily as a temple shot...

Yet Gordon... I can have and have had this conversation with Jim... what do YOU think based on the evidence presented here?

A 2nd shot to the back of the head requires much more damage than seen at Parkland... and to base the appearance of his injuries on the Bethesda photos, drawings and testimony is buying into the conspiracy....

IF we accept that something of a drastic nature was done to JFK's head between Parkland and Bethesda... we will never know the original extent of the injuries OTHER than what the Parkland/Dallas witnesses tell us.
IF the "F" photos represent what did happen in Dallas... Every one of the Dallas and Parkland witnesses MUST be wrong. The civilians and non-governmental medical personnel are WRONG and the tightly controlled MILITARY AUTOPSY concluded the exact opposite of what they all saw, touched and experienced...

If you are comfortable with that conclusion... so be it.

All I ask is that you look at Boswell's drawing, Boswell's illustration directly on the skull of how much bone and head and brain was gone... and those of the Parkland witnesses...
A 2-3 inch hole becomes a 19cmx10cm hole... the entire TOP of his head is gone.. There are fractures thru the BOTTOM of the skull and Brain...

I also suggest that you contact someone who can explain the medical terms in the 3rd version of the autopsy that is now official... as the first one was burned and the second one, which Rankin refers to here give us a different result and yet does not appear in the autopsy report available to us today...

You'll find many, many "first said"'s that point to conspiracy and cover-up simply dismissed without question... literally without a question asked... as in, "If that wasn't Oswald using Oswald's name, who was it?"

Mr. Rankin:
Then theres a great range of material in
regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit
or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all
has to be developed much more than we have at the present time.
We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably
a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation
the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent,
since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in
the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the
right of the backbone, which is below the place where the
picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt
in front and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike
any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through.
So that how it could turn, and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went.in a
finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said