Dotting the Eye

[David Josephs]

I explained hpw the wound appeared smaller to the Parkland Doctors and how the actual wound in the Skull(not the scalp) was measured by the Bethesda doctors to be larger. But perhaps you should read Gary Aguilar he does a much better job with the medical evidence. http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jf...tWrong.htm Like him I don't completely discount the autopsy evidence. The problem with this case is that almost all of the evidence gathered is so tainted it could be dismissed. One has to use their best judgement is choosing what to believe to credible. I am not sold on the best evidence theory, though I don't rule it out. BTW I have been at this now for 40 years so don't assume I haven't read a lot of the material you cite. I may not be able to keep it all in my head at one time. I doubt anyone can. And I also know how to use Google.

I make no such assumption Gordon... I would like though, from time to time, for you to address what I've posted.

The "wound" was not noted at all by Parkland personnel and again, based on the xrays, there is no bone there to measure.


I, in fact, do have much of that information in my head at one time and keep gigs of information at my fingertips to help me confirm what I remember before I post it.
If you've read my posts over the last 10 years you'd know that I go out of my way to illustrate what I'm saying under the assumption that someone may be reading these threads who does NOT have the kind of vast references we do.
I almost always include links to the source materials I post... I've always treated these discussions as reference materials for anyone wanting to look further...
I try not to assume that whoever I'm talking to knows exactly what I refer to... instead of just showing them and letting them read the source material and decide for themselves.

The arguments we make come from source materials... if the source materials are questionable, one's argument is questionable... Would you make an argument about JFK using Sy Hersh as your source and expect to be taken seriously?

I went thru the entirety of the "How 5 investigations" series at History-Matters and find that there is no mention of a circular wound to the temple - It does not even mention Robinson's comments about filling a small hole in the right temple yet it was written in 2003.

I've read and researched Aguilar and he also confirms that no one reports a hole in that spot. For those who wish to, here are excerpts and a link to the entire article.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/marsh/jfk-consp...ontro.html
Philip C. Wehle--then Commanding officer of the military District of Washington,
DC, described the head wound to the HSCA's Andy Purdy on 8-19-77, who reported,
"(Wehle) noticed a slight bruise over the right temple of the President but did
not see any significant damage to any other part of the head. He noted that the
wound was in the back of the head so he would not see it because the President
was lying face up; he also said he did not see an damage to the top of the head,
but said the President had a lot of hair which could have hidden that...." The
author is unaware of any diagram Wehle might have prepared for the HSCA.

Ronald C. Jones, MD, Parkland witness, told the WC there was a "large defect in
the back side of the head..." and "(there) appeared to be an exit wound in the
posterior portion of the skull." Jones told David Lifton, "If you brought him in
here today, I'd still say he was shot from the front." Jones repeated this to
student Brad Parker on 8/10/92, "...if they brought him in today, I would
tend--seeing what I saw, I would say that he was shot from the front." Jones
told Parker that he fundamentally agreed with McClelland's drawing of the back
of the head as seen in Six Seconds. Jones specifically denied to
Parker that he had seen a right anterior skull defect. He said, "Yeah. I didn't
think that there was any wound--I didn't appreciate any wound, anyway, in the
right temporal area or on the right side of the upper part of the head, you
know, over the--in front of the ear, say, or anything like that."



The hole in question is located in the FRONTAL BONE directly above the corner of the right eye. If you can post where Gary describes this hole - please do.
I am currently in the process of looking myself as well.


I bring to your attention that there does not exist a single diagram created by either Dallas personnel or Bethesda in which a wound at that location is marked.

I post an overlay of JFK and the xray to illustrate that a HOLE in that location in photos does not reconcile with the xrays of that area of the skull.

Example after example via the available evidence and not a single ackowledgement, not a single comment related to any single point I make.

If we are going to have a conversation - isn't part of that acknowledgement of the other's points to give the sense you're actually reading what I've posted....



Simple question...

With a hole of exit or entry where we see it in F6/7... why do we not have a single person putting a circle there?
Would you say the forehead hole was more noticeable than the 3-5mm hole in the throat which the Parkland personnel saw, marked and described repeatedly?


I don't know what that anomolie in those two photos is... The color Groden showing the "V" cut out in that area was also not noticed or noted by anyone.
The hinged opening was not noticed or noted by Dallas personnel... Looking at F6/7, do you suppose it possible not to notice, in addition to a hole in the right rear, a cracked open skull above the ear if you were an ER doctor in a major city and you're standing a foot from the man's head?

It sure would be helpful for you to post some imagery or testimony or evidence in support of your speculation... I have no doubt your knowledge is very extensive
Dal-Tex as a shot location is VERY possible.

If you're to claim a shot with an exit (or entry) at that "hole"...

I don't think it is too much to ask that it be supported with some source material from the assassination evidence itself, which, when read, leads one to the same conclusion.
or refute what I've offered using the same process...