The Head Wounds Revisited

[Gordon Gray]

It seems to me that the main reason the Dallas doctors didn't see a larger wound was because they didn't reflect the scalp. It seems reasonable to accept Dr. Aguilar's explanation that Jackie cradling the President's head pressed the hair and scalp in place so that only the blow out in the rear was apparent to the Dallas doctors. If we take the Newman's literally then the shots that came directly behind them would have come from the pergola to the left of Zapruder's pedestal. They would have struck at a right angle and most likely exited from the left side of the head. Why would it have been necessary to conceal the fact that there were multiple shooters? As long as Oswald was shown to be one of them and he was connected to Castro, wouldn't it have been supposed that the others were too? This would seem to me only to increase the suspicion of a team of Castro agents being responsible. The LN scenario wasn't the initial aim of the plan, the false flag Castro operation was.

Gordon, correct me if I am wrong, but I see three flaws in Dr. Aguilar's explanation. First Humes reports that the area "chiefly parietal but extending somewhat into the occipital" was devoid of scalp and bone. The Dallas doctors missed this wound completely. Second, let us suppose that a great quantity if skull and brain matter was lost to this area, but the scalp remained somewhat intact and Jackie did her part of keep that part of the head as close to natural as possible. That a man of Kemp Clark's credentials would then not be able to discern the loss of bone and brain in that area of the skull (I assume we are talking about the area Boswell marked "missing') is utterly incomprehensible to me. Third, it is precisely this area where Humes uttered before the FBI and everyone else in attendance that surgery had been done to the top of the skull. With all due respect to Dr. Augilar, I believe he is grasping at straws, and missing the far clearer picture of fraud in the evidence.

I think Humes' description is somewhat ambiguous, and it's at odds with the autopsy photos we have seen, which do not show substantial scalp or bone missing from the parietal or occipital region. Is there any doubt he has been loess than truthful in both his report and testimony? As some one who has witnessed scalp reflected at an autopsy I am not surprised that bone could be missing once it was reflected, but not obvious to an observer viewing before it had been reflected. Unless Dr. Clark made a careful examination of the head palpitating it with his hands, I doubt he would have detected this, given the presidents thick head of hair. Is there any report he made such an examination? As to the surgery to the top of the head remark, had it been done by Humes himself it makes little sense that he would announce this to everyone present. What other witnesses reported seeing this?