Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

 The issue of the number of head shots doesn't really matter to me. But, I will point out that the Zapruder film doesn't show it. I realize that the film was massively altered, but, why would they want to remove a head shot from the rear?  That was the story they were telling. So why take it out?

As for the autopsy report, it conflicted with what the Parkland doctors said. It reported the blowout wound in a different location, on the side of the head above the ear. And it reported a small "lacerated" wound to the right of the EOP and slightly above it, which was the very location of the blowout wound according to the Parkland doctors. The report did not refer to it as an entrance wound, although I presume that that is what they meant. They said it was 15x6 mm. Isn't that unusual for an entrance wound?  

And the only other thing are the x-rays, but Dr. Mantik says that they were altered. So, how can they be relied on? 

But again, to me, it matters little. What matters to me a lot is the chemical attack on JFK. So, I have prepared these succinct points about it. 

1. The very shallowness of the back wound suggests that it was not a metal bullet because of how rapidly it decelerated and stopped. However, ice is unstable and prone to bursting.  

2. That no bullet was found in the wound further suggests no metal bullet. And the arguments that it "fell out" are simply preposterous. It would have had to exit through the same holes in the clothes that were made going in. And, there were no forces, gravitational or otherwise, to make it fall out. There were no forces acting on the inert bullet to move it.  And after falling out, it got stuck in the seatback? Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, there was nothing for it to get stuck to. 

3. Could the bullet have been removed at the pre-autopsy? Theoretically, I suppose so, but the autopsy doctors reported no signs of tampering. And, the plotters had to know that the first doctors who would see JFK were going to be untethered ones.  Of course, the Parkland doctors did not discover the back wound, but they could have. And the argument from Physics that a metal bullet could not have stopped that fast still holds. 

4. The fact is that JFK shows the signs of intoxication in the Zapruder film. He exhibits a complete mental collapse, in which he lost the ability to speak or to communicate in any way. He took no evasive action. And it appears, from watching the film, that that he did not grasp what was going on. His mental breakdown cannot be attributed to physical trauma, which was relatively minimal at the time and included no brain damage at all.

5.  JFK's muscular dyskinesia is very apparent in the Zapruder film, starting with the way he brought his hands up to his throat, followed by his inability to put his arms down afterwards. Then after that, his tonic spasms only spread to neck, shoulders and back. It was probably very painful, and he withdrew completely, as he continued to seize up. It wasn't due to physical trauma, but rather, a nerve agent. 

President Kennedy really was attacked that way, and it was to immobilize him so that he would be a sitting duck when he reached the Kill Zone.