Again, but this time in the context of the LN narrative, we see an effort to "save" a theory that, to me, simply makes no sense. If a CT were arguing for the cowlick position, we'd all be saying:
1. Give me a plausible explanation for autopsy doctors, dealing with the actual body, being wrong by 4". That would be an utterly staggering error.
2. Give me a plausible explanation for photos with a ruler carefully (or perhaps not so carefully), identifying a red smudge that no one at the autopsy said was a bullet wound.
3. Convince me that a high-velocity bullet striking the top of a skull at a very considerable angle would leave a wound so inconsequential that we have to debate whether it's a hole at all. I find that unbelievable.
4. Explain why the HSCA was presented with an Ida Dox drawing that so clearly exaggerated the "bullet hole" appearance of the smudge (after she was provided with non-JFKA materials showing "how it should look").
5. Explain the later pressuring of the autopsy doctors as pretty thoroughly documented in Pat Speer's Chapter 13.
There simply had to be an agenda here. I can only assume that the EOP bullet position was deemed problematical. That would be my real concern: Is it problematical?
