Paul Landis on location of JFK head wound

[Vince Palamara]

 

[Vince Palamara]

@James DiEugenio

@Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

34 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:

@James DiEugenio

@Pat Speer

No surprise there. Most of the witnesses recall its being on the top back of the head ABOVE the ear. What sucked me down the rabbit hole was that so many took their stating it was on the far back of the head as "proof" it was really on the back of the head AT THE LEVEL of the ear. Hubba-wha? I don't know what that is but it most certainly isn't rational, IMO. 

[Vince Palamara]

Just now, Pat Speer said:

No surprise there. Most of the witnesses recall its being on the top back of the head ABOVE the ear. What sucked me down the rabbit hole was that so many took their stating it was on the far back of the head as "proof" it was really on the back of the head AT THE LEVEL of the ear. Hubba-wha? I don't know what that is but it most certainly isn't rational, IMO. 

This is THE first and only time Landis is on record about the head wound!

[Pat Speer]

Just now, Vince Palamara said:

This is THE first and only time Landis is on record about the head wound!

There's no reason to believe that he studied the wound. As a consequence, he is almost certainly remembering where he saw it depicted afterwards. He could be thinking of the wound in CE 388. But he's admitted reading Thompson's book in 2014 or so. So he's probably thinking of the wound in the so-called McClelland drawing.