Es kann sich ja dann jeder seine eigene Meinung bilden, was da am besten wozu passt und wie genau man das nehmen darf.
To critics of the official investigations, it is inconceivable that the presumably skilled Dallas doctors, conversant with anatomical terms, would consistently misuse words like "cerebellum" and "occipital" and say that the wound extended into the back of the head if, in fact, it did not.Fazit auf der verlinkten Seite:
But speaking to the occipital question, Grossman [one of the Parkland doctors and] a neurosurgeon, suggested that part of the confusion surrounding the location of the head wound could be the result of the imprecision with which the term "occipital" is used. While the occiput refers specifically to a bone in the lower back section of the head, Grossman said many doctors loosely use the term to refer to "the back fifth of the head . . . there is this ambiguity about what constitutes the occipital and parietal area . . . It's all very imprecise." (Boston Sunday Globe, June 21, 1981.)
Grossman's position is supported by the "Glossary" of medical definitions offered by the House Select Committee on Assassinations:
The upper, back part of the head and skull.
The back part of the head.
Of course, the issue is much like that of witnesses who said the large defect was in the "back" of the head. "Back" can mean occipital bone, or it can mean the top of the head toward the back. Back can mean "posterior," in other words.
What the conspiracy theorists are doing is to exploit the imprecision of the English language to argue for wounds that fit their theories.