If, as some people contend, there was a large hole on the right rear portion of JFKs head and a corresponding small entrance hole at the hairline area above the right eye (presumably this would require a shot from some area in the vicinity of the triple overpass in front of the limousine), then shouldn't JFKs head have snapped back and to the right rather than to back and to the left as we see in the Zapruder film?
Yes Gerry, you have made a good point. Basically, an argument that can be used against a Pro LN scenario cannot be used against a Pro CT scenario. In that case, it is to be dropped like a red hot stove.
A Pro CT argument is that a body will always move away from the gun. This is a false argument. The muscles of the victim may move the body, even in the case of a bullet through the brain, as can be shown by film of goats being shot through the brain. But cannot be shown by film of people being shot through the brain because these experiments are not allowed.
So, a Pro CT argument is that “Back and to the Left” movement of JFK’s head (I think it’s more of a Backward movement, with a falling to the left side) proves there was not shot from Oswald’s position then, but instead a shot from the right front.
But a back of the right part of the head exit wound indicates a shooter to the front and left. But the principle of “a victim is always driven away from the shooter” and the claim “JFK head was driven back and to the left” would preclude such a shooter. The fallacy in your thinking, from a CT point of view, is using arguments that can be used to discard a Pro-LN scenario to discard a Pro-CT scenario. That is a clear misuse of these techniques.
Martin Weidmann pretended to not understand what you were driving at so he danced around your question.
