Aguilar's "Back of the Head" Witnesses - 10
John McAdams
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." Specter's "going
toward the rear" implies a wound more posterior than anterior, but
that is what the photos and x-rays show.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
Assassination.
I wonder which instances he's admitting to?
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:44a0ba91...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
paul seaton
>
> It's puzzling indeed why Aguilar included Greer as a "back of the
> head" witness when he said "upper right side." Specter's "going
> toward the rear" implies a wound more posterior than anterior, but
> that is what the photos and x-rays show.
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/X_AUT_2.JPG
..shows a wound "more posterior than anterior" ??
You might want to run through how you explain that to yourself, .John.
Paul Seaton
tima...@hotmail.com
The frontal wound was such to be very obvious and enough to the
observer without venturing to see the back. The evidence speaks that
there was a hole of equal size on the back, to those who have no other
motives but to appreciate reality.
voice from the past
John McAdams
<paulREMO...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>news:44a0ba91...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>[..]
>
>>
>> It's puzzling indeed why Aguilar included Greer as a "back of the
>> head" witness when he said "upper right side." Specter's "going
>> toward the rear" implies a wound more posterior than anterior, but
>> that is what the photos and x-rays show.
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/X_AUT_2.JPG
>
>..shows a wound "more posterior than anterior" ??
>You might want to run through how you explain that to yourself, .John.
>
>
It was more posterior than anterior.
Are you actually claiming that any posterior wound is consistent with
the occipital bone wound you guys believe in?
He said UPPER and he said SIDE.
That doesn't put it anywere near the EOP.
Robert Harris
john.m...@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.
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?
Robert Harris
John McAdams
wrote:
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.
Robert Harris
john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
Well, we seem to have a choice here.
We can either go with what the man actually said, or go with your
distortion. Here are his words, once again,
"With the exception of Adolph Giesecke, MD, the Parkland witnesses were
unanimous in placing the skull wound rearward on the right side."
>
> Greer's description is nearer to the Dox drawing that to the
> "McClelland drawing."
You seem to be talking about Specters description, not Greer's.
>
>
> >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.
What exactly are you labeling as "blather"??
Even your fellow LNT types have acknowledged this damage. Why are you
evading the subject?
And why is it that when I challenged you on this, you labelled my post
as "spam" and then deleted it??
Robert Harris
John McAdams
wrote:
That's what Aguilar said!
That's not evidence.
>>
>> Greer's description is nearer to the Dox drawing that to the
>> "McClelland drawing."
>
>You seem to be talking about Specters description, not Greer's.
>
Greer said "upper right side."
That's not a back of the head statement.
>>
>>
>> >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.
>
>What exactly are you labeling as "blather"??
>
>Even your fellow LNT types have acknowledged this damage. Why are you
>evading the subject?
Bob, quit misrepresenting what people say.
Nobody has said they see a blowout where you see a blowout.
>
>And why is it that when I challenged you on this, you labelled my post
>as "spam" and then deleted it??
>
Because you posted the exact same thing about eight times.
That's spam, and Peter voted with me to reject it.
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
Perhaps you can explain to me a couple of things:
1. Why was the lateral density that allegedly corresponds with the AP
6.5mm fragment barely discernable from the surrounding bone and
significanly less dense than most, if not all, of the known metallic
fragments, yet it's lateral dimension is supposed to be the greatest?
2. How did it shear off of a bullet when Larry has never seen such happen?
3. How did it end up 1cm below the alleged entry point?
4. Why is there a trail of opacities (bone chips, due to their density on
the film) seen just anterior to the fracture that is just a short distance
from the EOP (right where the HSCA cropped it before publication)?
Now, these are puzzling questions, particularly since I read x-rays daily
and viewed these things on the originals. I know you are typically more
privy to siding with the majority opinion, but have you ever read the
radiology reports from the radiologists and note the differences and
contrasts between them?
I would bet my house on the fact that the lateral opacity near the cowlick
isn't metal, which creates a major problem for the cowlick entry folks.
Chad
P.S.- neither Larry or I could see a coned beveling near the cowlick. We
both saw opposing fractures that would fit together like a hand in a
glove.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:44a1e824...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John McAdams
<doc...@netzero.net> wrote:
>John,
>
>Perhaps you can explain to me a couple of things:
>
>1. Why was the lateral density that allegedly corresponds with the AP
>6.5mm fragment barely discernable from the surrounding bone and
>significanly less dense than most, if not all, of the known metallic
>fragments, yet it's lateral dimension is supposed to be the greatest?
>
But not all?
>2. How did it shear off of a bullet when Larry has never seen such happen?
>
Frankly, top forensic pathologists have as much expertise as Larry in
this.
He is indeed a bona fide wound ballistics expert, but the FPP had seen
literally thousands of wrongful deaths.
>3. How did it end up 1cm below the alleged entry point?
>
I don't know.
What do you think it was?
>4. Why is there a trail of opacities (bone chips, due to their density on
>the film) seen just anterior to the fracture that is just a short distance
>from the EOP (right where the HSCA cropped it before publication)?
>
But you admit that there is a higher trail of metal fragments, right?
Do you think that two bullets hit Kennedy's head.
>Now, these are puzzling questions, particularly since I read x-rays daily
>and viewed these things on the originals. I know you are typically more
>privy to siding with the majority opinion, but have you ever read the
>radiology reports from the radiologists and note the differences and
>contrasts between them?
>
>I would bet my house on the fact that the lateral opacity near the cowlick
>isn't metal, which creates a major problem for the cowlick entry folks.
>
What do you think it is?
And if you think the entry is near the EOP, why don't the back of the
head photos show any entry there?
The entry wound is seen in the cowlick area, consistent with the
higher trail of metal fragments.
>Chad
>
>P.S.- neither Larry or I could see a coned beveling near the cowlick. We
>both saw opposing fractures that would fit together like a hand in a
>glove.
>
Do you doubt that the fractures radiate from a point 4 inches above
the EOP?
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
> On 28 Jun 2006 00:50:02 -0400, "Dr. Chad Zimmerman"
> <doc...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>>John,
>>
>>Perhaps you can explain to me a couple of things:
>>
>>1. Why was the lateral density that allegedly corresponds with the AP
>>6.5mm fragment barely discernable from the surrounding bone and
>>significanly less dense than most, if not all, of the known metallic
>>fragments, yet it's lateral dimension is supposed to be the greatest?
>>
>
> But not all?
Perhaps not the itty bitty tiniest ones, .John.
>
>
>>2. How did it shear off of a bullet when Larry has never seen such happen?
>>
>
> Frankly, top forensic pathologists have as much expertise as Larry in
> this.
>
> He is indeed a bona fide wound ballistics expert, but the FPP had seen
> literally thousands of wrongful deaths.
Seeing thousands of wrongful deaths and seeing one where a thick FMJ round
sheered
off a piece at the entrance is a stretch, don't you think?
>
>
>
>>3. How did it end up 1cm below the alleged entry point?
>>
>
> I don't know.
>
> What do you think it was?
For all practical purposes, it appeared to be a chip of bone from the above
fracture, likely lodged
between the scalp and the skull.
It was actually quite shocking for me to see.
>
>
>>4. Why is there a trail of opacities (bone chips, due to their density on
>>the film) seen just anterior to the fracture that is just a short distance
>>from the EOP (right where the HSCA cropped it before publication)?
>>
>
> But you admit that there is a higher trail of metal fragments, right?
Of course I do.
>
> Do you think that two bullets hit Kennedy's head.
Nope, I think that most likely, several small fragments were carried up and
outward and stopped
either in brain tissue or scalp/hair. You have to keep in mind that this was
not a fragmentation within
a closed container. The container, his head, opened up.And, with it came out
tissue and bullet fragments-
unless you think the bullet fragments stayed in a nice cone and only the
tissue came out.
>
>
>>Now, these are puzzling questions, particularly since I read x-rays daily
>>and viewed these things on the originals. I know you are typically more
>>privy to siding with the majority opinion, but have you ever read the
>>radiology reports from the radiologists and note the differences and
>>contrasts between them?
>>
>>I would bet my house on the fact that the lateral opacity near the cowlick
>>isn't metal, which creates a major problem for the cowlick entry folks.
>>
>
> What do you think it is?
>
> And if you think the entry is near the EOP, why don't the back of the
> head photos show any entry there?
It is above the EOP and below the cowlick. In my opinion, probably an inch
to an inch and a half above the EOP. I don't believe that photograph shows
a hole at the cowlick either.
>
> The entry wound is seen in the cowlick area, consistent with the
> higher trail of metal fragments.
I don't think that hole is at the cowlick, .John. The fracture on the
lateral is near
the top of the ears or so. That thing, whatever it is, in the photograph may
be very
near that as well.
>
>
>>Chad
>>
>>P.S.- neither Larry or I could see a coned beveling near the cowlick. We
>>both saw opposing fractures that would fit together like a hand in a
>>glove.
>>
>
> Do you doubt that the fractures radiate from a point 4 inches above
> the EOP?
Based on what orientation? Durnavich's orientation of the lateral to the
anterior?
There may be some problems with that, particularly if the 6.5mm frags aren't
the same. The
petrous portion of bone isn't an absolute. It is a large portion of bone
that can be rotated about. Thus,
his orientation leaves only two points, not four, imo.
Chad
paul seaton
> On 27 Jun 2006 13:37:49 -0400, "paul seaton"
> <paulREMO...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> >news:44a0ba91...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >[..]
> >
> >>
> >> It's puzzling indeed why Aguilar included Greer as a "back of the
> >> head" witness when he said "upper right side." Specter's "going
> >> toward the rear" implies a wound more posterior than anterior, but
> >> that is what the photos and x-rays show.
> >
> >http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/X_AUT_2.JPG
> >
> >..shows a wound "more posterior than anterior" ??
> >You might want to run through how you explain that to yourself, .John.
> >
> >
>
> It was more posterior than anterior.
Now you are sounding like a CT, John.
Have a look at that xray again =>
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/X_AUT_2.JPG
This is "more posterior than anterior" ???
Here's Abe Z showing where he saw the wound , from your own website - LOOK
AT IT JOHN =>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zap.gif
This is "more posterior than anterior" ???
Here's the Z film itself , again from your own site - LOOK AT IT JOHN =>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/z335.jpg
This is "more posterior than anterior" ???
Here's Larry Angel on the largest bone fragment blown forwards out of JFK's
skull :
"Xrays 4, 5 & 6 show a large piece of skull vault , clearly frontal bone .."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/hsca_exit/graphics/10cm-frag.jpg
These are all "more posterior than anterior" ??? ( *^*($&^&(%£$"*******
!!!!!!! ????? )
How did you ever manage to get yourself so tied in knots ? Maybe because you
realise that to reconcile the witness descriptions you just have to get that
wound back at least SOMEWHERE near the back of the head ?? (Sorry... I mean
the posterior of the cranium .....)
--
Paul Seaton
Anthony Marsh
> On 28 Jun 2006 00:50:02 -0400, "Dr. Chad Zimmerman"
> <doc...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> Perhaps you can explain to me a couple of things:
>>
>> 1. Why was the lateral density that allegedly corresponds with the AP
>> 6.5mm fragment barely discernable from the surrounding bone and
>> significanly less dense than most, if not all, of the known metallic
>> fragments, yet it's lateral dimension is supposed to be the greatest?
>>
>
> But not all?
>
>
>> 2. How did it shear off of a bullet when Larry has never seen such happen?
>>
>
> Frankly, top forensic pathologists have as much expertise as Larry in
> this.
>
> He is indeed a bona fide wound ballistics expert, but the FPP had seen
> literally thousands of wrongful deaths.
>
>
Are you talking about Larry Sturdivan? Is it your opinion that a bona
fide wound ballistics expert gets the muzzle velocity and down range
velocities of a bullet wrong and lies about test result data to make it
fit into a pre-conceived theory? Is that how real scientists work?
>
>> 3. How did it end up 1cm below the alleged entry point?
>>
>
> I don't know.
>
> What do you think it was?
>
>
>> 4. Why is there a trail of opacities (bone chips, due to their density on
>> the film) seen just anterior to the fracture that is just a short distance
>>from the EOP (right where the HSCA cropped it before publication)?
>
> But you admit that there is a higher trail of metal fragments, right?
>
> Do you think that two bullets hit Kennedy's head.
>
>
>> Now, these are puzzling questions, particularly since I read x-rays daily
>> and viewed these things on the originals. I know you are typically more
>> privy to siding with the majority opinion, but have you ever read the
>> radiology reports from the radiologists and note the differences and
>> contrasts between them?
>>
>> I would bet my house on the fact that the lateral opacity near the cowlick
>> isn't metal, which creates a major problem for the cowlick entry folks.
>>
>
> What do you think it is?
>
> And if you think the entry is near the EOP, why don't the back of the
> head photos show any entry there?
>
> The entry wound is seen in the cowlick area, consistent with the
> higher trail of metal fragments.
>
The cowlick entry is NOT consistent with the higher trail of metal
fragments. They are even higher than this imaginary entrance and the
angle of the trail is inconsistent with the HSCA's imagined bullet path.
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/rgbskull.gif
Anthony Marsh
Again, what do you mean by the "McClelland drawing"? I hope that by your
putting it inside quotation marks you are acknowledging that McClelland
did not draw it. So, some people believe there was a wound very similar
to the one Josiah Thompson illustrates in his book Six Seconds in
Dallas. There are other witnesses who do make their own diagrams similar
to that. See the ARRB depositions.
paul seaton
> On 27 Jun 2006 13:37:49 -0400, "paul seaton"
> <paulREMO...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> >news:44a0ba91...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >[..]
> >
> >>
> >> It's puzzling indeed why Aguilar included Greer as a "back of the
> >> head" witness when he said "upper right side." Specter's "going
> >> toward the rear" implies a wound more posterior than anterior, but
> >> that is what the photos and x-rays show.
> >
> >http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/X_AUT_2.JPG
> >
> >..shows a wound "more posterior than anterior" ??
> >You might want to run through how you explain that to yourself, .John.
> >
> >
>
> It was more posterior than anterior.
Here's a quote from your own web page, John :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm#harper :
"Then, you might ask, how do the Dealey Plaza witnesses describe the head
wound. Take a look at how Zapruder described the wound to Jay Watson of
WFAA-TV shortly after the assassination.."
And here's ole Abe himself : http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zap.gif
Is he showing a wound 'more posterior than anterior' ?
Nope.
So why do you reference Mr Z ( with approval ) showing a wound very far
forward , and simultaneously claim the wound was 'more posterior than
anterior' ? Is it just love of being totally self contradictory ?
Please explain.
Thanks.
--
Paul Seaton
Anthony Marsh
> John,
>
> Perhaps you can explain to me a couple of things:
>
> 1. Why was the lateral density that allegedly corresponds with the AP
> 6.5mm fragment barely discernable from the surrounding bone and
> significanly less dense than most, if not all, of the known metallic
> fragments, yet it's lateral dimension is supposed to be the greatest?
>
> 2. How did it shear off of a bullet when Larry has never seen such happen?
>
Larry, even though he may be a nice guy, is not the be all and end all
when it comes to ballistics. There are a lot of things that he has not
seen personally.
Robert Harris
john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
.john, you seem to have lost track of the conversation here:-)
The issue was, your accusation that Aguilar falsely claimed these people
were all "back of the head witnesses", when in reality, he only said
they placed the skull wound, "rearward, on the right side".
You simply distorted his statement and then attacked your own
fabrication.
>
>
> >>
> >> Greer's description is nearer to the Dox drawing that to the
> >> "McClelland drawing."
> >
> >You seem to be talking about Specters description, not Greer's.
> >
>
> Greer said "upper right side."
>
> That's not a back of the head statement.
Of course, Aguilar never said it was.
.john, have you ever considered how much more productive you could be if
you simply investigated this crime instead of being obsessed with your
"opponents"??
Why do you instead, endlessly evade the most important issues and
evidence and spend all your time, posting these attacks on other people?
Trust me, .john, once you start getting to the truth, the BS and phony
theories will fall by the wayside all by themselves.
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >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.
> >
> >What exactly are you labeling as "blather"??
> >
> >Even your fellow LNT types have acknowledged this damage. Why are you
> >evading the subject?
>
> Bob, quit misrepresenting what people say.
Ok, so do I have to start posting a dozen challenges for you to cite my
misrepresentation??
Or will you just start snipping them as "spam" :-)
>
> Nobody has said they see a blowout where you see a blowout.
Stop changing my words.
You know damned good and well, that the reason you evade this stuff, is
that you don't have answers that don't point to the fact that there was
a second head shot.
>
>
> >
> >And why is it that when I challenged you on this, you labelled my post
> >as "spam" and then deleted it??
> >
>
> Because you posted the exact same thing about eight times.
In order to remain in compliance with the newsgroups rules, I will only
ask if you care to make a wager on that statement?
>
> That's spam, and Peter voted with me to reject it.
If he did, then he only did so after you told him too.
Robert Harris
John McAdams
wrote:
OK, so you are *admitting* that Greer was not a back of the head
witness.
Good.
As to what Aguilar said, anybody can read his essay.
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
Aguilar says that 44 witnesses described a "right rear" wound at odds
with the autopsy photos and x-rays.
He lists Greer among the 44.
But Greer doesn't belone on that list.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Greer's description is nearer to the Dox drawing that to the
>> >> "McClelland drawing."
>> >
>> >You seem to be talking about Specters description, not Greer's.
>> >
>>
>> Greer said "upper right side."
>>
>> That's not a back of the head statement.
>
>Of course, Aguilar never said it was.
>
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
>.john, have you ever considered how much more productive you could be if
>you simply investigated this crime instead of being obsessed with your
>"opponents"??
>
Bob, you posts on this newsgroup show a completely out-of-control
obsession with people who disagree with you.
>Why do you instead, endlessly evade the most important issues and
>evidence and spend all your time, posting these attacks on other people?
>
>Trust me, .john, once you start getting to the truth, the BS and phony
>theories will fall by the wayside all by themselves.
>
>
I know that, Bob, and you don't.
Robert Harris
McAdams) wrote:
LOL!!
I have no idea and I could not possibly care less what Greer said on
that issue.
Why should I, when we have medical professionals who diagrammed and
measured the damage? And when I can see much of the damage in some
very clear the Zapruder frames?
.john, your methods here are embarassingly transparent.
You are evading the facts and evidence, because you realize they prove
you wrong. And you are substituting these tiresome attacks on your
adversaries - even when the issue has already been resolved.
>
>Good.
>
>As to what Aguilar said, anybody can read his essay.
>
>http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
>
>Aguilar says that 44 witnesses described a "right rear" wound at odds
>with the autopsy photos and x-rays.
Why don't you just cite his actual words?
"With the exception of Adolph Giesecke, MD, the Parkland witnesses
were unanimous in placing the skull wound rearward on the right side."
>He lists Greer among the 44.
>
>But Greer doesn't belone on that list.
He does if you read what he actually said, rather than what you
pretend that he said.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> Greer's description is nearer to the Dox drawing that to the
>>> >> "McClelland drawing."
>>> >
>>> >You seem to be talking about Specters description, not Greer's.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Greer said "upper right side."
>>>
>>> That's not a back of the head statement.
>>
>>Of course, Aguilar never said it was.
>>
>
>http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
"With the exception of Adolph Giesecke, MD, the Parkland witnesses
were unanimous in placing the skull wound rearward on the right side."
>
>
>>.john, have you ever considered how much more productive you could be if
>>you simply investigated this crime instead of being obsessed with your
>>"opponents"??
>>
>
>Bob, you posts on this newsgroup show a completely out-of-control
>obsession with people who disagree with you.
.john, I have no problem at all with the folks who disagree with me.
It is the ones who fully agree but pretend otherwise, whom I have a
problem with.
Robert Harris
>
>
>>Why do you instead, endlessly evade the most important issues and
>>evidence and spend all your time, posting these attacks on other people?
>>
>>Trust me, .john, once you start getting to the truth, the BS and phony
>>theories will fall by the wayside all by themselves.
>>
>>
>
>I know that, Bob, and you don't.
>
>.John
>
>The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message news:...
> McAdams said that the authorities destroyed evidence 2 or 3 times in the
> JFK Assassination.
>
> I wonder which instances he's admitting to?
>
>
>
>
> "John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> news:44a0ba91...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>> 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." Specter's "going
>> toward the rear" implies a wound more posterior than anterior, but
>> that is what the photos and x-rays show.
>>
paul seaton
"paul seaton" <paulREMO...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:44a2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John forebears to explain, I see.
--
Paul Seaton
paul seaton
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3rOdnTw89MFPJj_Z...@comcast.com...
> John McAdams wrote:
['']
> >
> > The entry wound is seen in the cowlick area, consistent with the
> > higher trail of metal fragments.
> >
>
> The cowlick entry is NOT consistent with the higher trail of metal
> fragments. They are even higher than this imaginary entrance and the
> angle of the trail is inconsistent with the HSCA's imagined bullet path.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/rgbskull.gif
See also this image :
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/xray/images/bullet.jpg
..from this page :
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/xray/xray.htm
The metal frags are marked in white. The 'cowlick' 'metal' is at the lower
left, way out of line with - and well below - the apparent trail produced by
the other metal fragments.
--
Paul Seaton
Anthony Marsh
Cute animation, but those cartoons do not make any relevant points,
especially when they are not from President Kennedy.
My graphic is relevant, because it actually uses Kennedy's lateral
X-rays and the Dox diagram of the HSCA trajectory. It criticizes the
HSCA trajectory. And parenthetically Dale Myers.