> >In article <44a0ba91.2600...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:

> >> Gary Aguilar claims to have examined the testimony of 46 witnesses to
> >> Kennedy's head wound, at both Parkland and Bethesda, and found that 44
> >> of the 46 described the head wound as contradicting the photos and
> >> x-rays of the autopsy as they exist in the National Archives.

> >> So does Gary have 44 "back of the head" witnesses?  And are his 46
> >> witnesses selected so as to avoid witnesses who placed the wound at
> >> the top of the head, or the side of the head?

> >> Let's take one example:

> >> The following quotes from Aguilar are taken from:

> >> http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

> >> <Quote on>-------------------------------

> >> 3) SECRET SERVICE AGENT WILLIAM GREER was asked by Arlen Specter for
> >> the Warren Commission to describe the head wound he saw at Bethesda.
> >> Greer said, "I would--to the best of my recollection it was in this
> >> part of the head right here." Specter immediately asked, "Upper
> >> right?" Greer: "Upper right side." Specter: "Upper right side, going
> >> toward the rear. and what was the condition of the skull at that
> >> point?" Greer: "The skull was completely--this part was completely
> >> gone." (Warren Comm-- V2:127)(emphasis added)

> >> <Quote off>------------------------------

> >> It's puzzling indeed why Aguilar included Greer as a "back of the
> >> head" witness when he said "upper right side."  

> >Yes, it would have been "puzzling" indeed, if that was what Aguilar had
> >actually said. But as usual, you are misrepresenting him. Aguilar stated
> >in that article,

> >"With the exception of Adolph Giesecke, MD, the Parkland witnesses were
> >unanimous in placing the skull wound rearward on the right side."

> >Of course, Greer's statement was a perfect match with that.

> No, Bob.

> The "upper" part is a huge problem for Aguilar, and all the Back of
> the Head Buffs, as they want to get the wound down near the EOP.

> Greer's description is nearer to the Dox drawing that to the
> "McClelland drawing."

> >BTW, why do you continue to evade the fact that we can see massive
> >damage in the BOH, in Zapruder frames in the 330's?

> >Is your goal here, to get to the truth, or is it to distort your
> >adversaries statements so that you are able to attack them?

> Cut the silly blather, Bob.