Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Axxman300]

How, in 2017, could somebody believe in a single-assassin shooting scenario? The problems with the EOP wound is humongous evidence against that.

Ballistics, eye-witness testimony, x-rays, autopsy findings, the film of the assassination all prove two shots struck the motorcade.

We know where they came from. We know who pulled the trigger.

Fabricating a slack-jaw theory from cherry-picked, out-of-context testimony is everything that's wrong with modern CTists.

For 50 years NOBODY claimed a second GSW to the head, but now some nimrod comes along who can't read, doesn't understand basic ballistics, lacks a high school level of history knowledge, and tries to interpret sophisticated medical testimony that's proven to be way over his head wants us to believe there's proof of a second bullet to the head.

A bullet fired from a silenced .22 rifle that nobody found, a weapon that no professional gunman would use on anything but squirrels. We are told this rifle and bullet did things that no .22 has even done since the round was invented.

Meanwhile we actually have a Carcano rifle that's accurate up to 1,000 yards. The 6.5x52mm round was used to hunt elephants instead of the standard .577, .505, and the 585 rifles because it was lighter in comparison, AND THE ROUND COULD PENETRATE THE THICK SKULL. Needless to say, the Carcano round was devastating to JFK's skull, and it was a round that the FBI and Secret Service had to test because they'd never seen it before.

Before you can rule in a 2nd bullet to the head you have to rule out the 6.5x52mm round...and you can't...not even with Star Trek technology.

 

[Axxman300]

Can you?

Oswald shoots three times from the TSBD, 6th floor, striking the President twice: once in the back that passed through the body and strikes Connally.

Weird this is that ALL of the evidence backs this up.

 

[Tomtomkent]

How, in 2017, could somebody believe in a single-assassin shooting scenario? The problems with the EOP wound is humongous evidence against that.

No.
The problem with EOP wound is that you have failed to show it happened.
The doctors you tried to cite reached a different conclusion.
The evidence does not show it.
The autopsy does not describe it.
Nobody cares about your definition of "slightly".
The autopay measurements put it elsewhere.
All your quibbles about the damage to the brain are better explained by placing the wound where the WC says.

You have built your conspiracy on something you have failed to convince anybody of, and for which you offer no reason to take seriously.

 

[bknight]

How, in 2017, could somebody believe in a single-assassin shooting scenario? The problems with the EOP wound is humongous evidence against that.

What does the date have to do with ANY discussion point? Has there been any evidence in the last 40+ yrs. that point to a different conclusion that was originally published? This is a very immature statement.

 

[Belz...]

How, in 2017, could somebody believe in a single-assassin shooting scenario?

Same reasons somebody could believe it in 1963.

The problems with the EOP wound is humongous evidence against that.

Like what? They caught communist Oswald with a rifle that matched the bullets and that was positioned in a location consistent with the direction from which the shots came. Two bullets hit Kennedy, one of which was fatal, as confirmed by the autopsy. There's even a film of the events as they occured.

There's no reason to assume there was another shooter. No extra shots, no extra bullets, no shots from any other direction, no other suspect, etc.

Really, the only reason why this conspiracy theory got started in the first place is because Oswald was then killed by Ruby.

 

[MicahJava]

Same reasons somebody could believe it in 1963.



Like what? They caught communist Oswald with a rifle that matched the bullets and that was positioned in a location consistent with the direction from which the shots came. Two bullets hit Kennedy, one of which was fatal, as confirmed by the autopsy. There's even a film of the events as they occured.

There's no reason to assume there was another shooter. No extra shots, no extra bullets, no shots from any other direction, no other suspect, etc.

Really, the only reason why this conspiracy theory got started in the first place is because Oswald was then killed by Ruby.

In 1963, the official story was that a bullet entered the EOP and exited the top of the head. It was a given because how could the three autopsy doctors who handled the President's body for several hours be simultaneously wrong?

I've already explained the problems with the EOP wound. So your best bet is the cowlick entry theory, solidified in the HSCA final report in 1980. So if you want to invoke a pet theory developed in the late 70's that the autopsy doctors rejected, acknowledge it.

 

[CORed]

In 1963, the official story was that a bullet entered the EOP and exited the top of the head. It was a given because how could the three autopsy doctors who handled the President's body for several hours be simultaneously wrong?

I've already explained the problems with the EOP wound. So your best bet is the cowlick entry theory, solidified in the HSCA final report in 1980. So if you want to invoke a pet theory developed in the late 70's that the autopsy doctors rejected, acknowledge it.

The rejection of the "cowlick" entry by the autopsy doctors happened only in your head. You have offered extremely flimsy evidence for the lower location of the entrance wound, and no evidence whatsoever of a second head wound, or that anybody other than Oswald shot Kennedy.

 

[CORed]

Same reasons somebody could believe it in 1963.



Like what? They caught communist Oswald with a rifle that matched the bullets and that was positioned in a location consistent with the direction from which the shots came. Two bullets hit Kennedy, one of which was fatal, as confirmed by the autopsy. There's even a film of the events as they occured.

There's no reason to assume there was another shooter. No extra shots, no extra bullets, no shots from any other direction, no other suspect, etc.

Really, the only reason why this conspiracy theory got started in the first place is because Oswald was then killed by Ruby.

I think Ruby's killing of Oswald certainly helped fuel the conspiracy theories, but I have a hard time fitting it into any plausible conspiracy. As far as I'm concerned, the evidence says that Oswald was the only shooter of Kennedy, so any plausible conspiracy involves Oswald. But who? Ruby seems like he could have been a Mafia hitman, but Oswald? I can't imagine the Mafia (or anybody else, really) picking Oswald as the guy they would trust to carry out the shooting. Oswald's contacts with the Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico City are the only possible leads I see, but Ruby doesn't fit as part of a Communist conspiracy. Any way you slice it, it looks like at least one lone nut, or more probably two lone nuts, is the most likely scenario.

 

[Belz...]

In 1963, the official story was that a bullet entered the EOP and exited the top of the head.

Irrelevant. The bullet entered and exited the head, killing him instantly. From the video evidence alone we can tell it came from behind, which is where Oswald and his rifle were located. You've not addressed a single of the points I made.

 

[MicahJava]

Irrelevant. The bullet entered and exited the head, killing him instantly. From the video evidence alone we can tell it came from behind, which is where Oswald and his rifle were located. You've not addressed a single of the points I made.

But where on the back of the head did the bullet enter?

 

[RoboTimbo]

But where on the back of the head did the bullet enter?

But where did the bullet come from?

 

[bknight]

In 1963, the official story was that a bullet entered the EOP and exited the top of the head. It was a given because how could the three autopsy doctors who handled the President's body for several hours be simultaneously wrong?

I've already explained the problems with the EOP wound. So your best bet is the cowlick entry theory, solidified in the HSCA final report in 1980. So if you want to invoke a pet theory developed in the late 70's that the autopsy doctors rejected, acknowledge it.

The autopsy doctors weren't wrong/incorrect/inept(except for the lack of training in autopsy procedures), just your continued inability to understands the facts of the autopsy.

Only in your fantasies, "I've already explained the problems with the EOP wound". You haven't provided evidence that the single bullet did no enter the back of the head and exit out the top right, shattering the skull in the process. And you put forward that the bullet entered the head and exit the throat? Since this trajectory is impossible why did you even submit that thought?
Have you sat and thought about any of the CT site(s) which you visit to ponder what if anything is plausible in the story they tell?

 

[Axxman300]

In 1963, the official story was that a bullet entered the EOP and exited the top of the head. It was a given because how could the three autopsy doctors who handled the President's body for several hours be simultaneously wrong?

The head wound was recorded in the Zapruder Film. The bullet entered and exited right where they said it did.

In this case a picture is worth a thousand quivels.

The doctors weren't wrong.

I've already explained the problems with the EOP wound.

No, you've only articulated YOUR problems in comprehension with both the medical data, and the medical testimony in both content, and context.

So your best bet is the cowlick entry theory, solidified in the HSCA final report in 1980. So if you want to invoke a pet theory developed in the late 70's that the autopsy doctors rejected, acknowledge it.

Here you go putting words into someone's mouth again. It means you have no solid argument against the ACTUAL point made, so you fabricate your own point, and then fumble that one too.

As a CTist you embody failing.

 

[MicahJava]

The autopsy doctors weren't wrong/incorrect/inept(except for the lack of training in autopsy procedures), just your continued inability to understands the facts of the autopsy.

Only in your fantasies, "I've already explained the problems with the EOP wound". You haven't provided evidence that the single bullet did no enter the back of the head and exit out the top right, shattering the skull in the process.

First, Dr. Pierre Finck was one of the three lead autopsy doctors, and he was a forensic pathologist specializing in gunshot wounds in the military.

Also, already explained why a trajectory from the EOP to the top of the head almost certainly can't be true:

1. The trajectory between the original EOP wound location and the top-right side of the head, at Zapruder frame 312-313, would require a sharp upwards deflection of the bullet,

2. The pattern of fragments on the head X-rays are entirely on the top of the head, besides the one possible minute fragment in the upper neck. A trajectory from the original EOP location to the top of the head would probably leave bullet fragments in the occipital-cerebellar are,

3. A trajectory from the original EOP location to the top-right side of the head would severely damage the cerebellum. The official brain photographs show only a slightly disrupted cerebellum.

And you put forward that the bullet entered the head and exit the throat? Since this trajectory is impossible why did you even submit that thought?
Have you sat and thought about any of the CT site(s) which you visit to ponder what if anything is plausible in the story they tell?

Do you think the EOP-throat connection would be a straight line like this drawing from this 11/23/1963 Boston Globe article? No, it would have involved a bullet or a fragment of a bullet deflecting sharply downwards after entering near the EOP. When a bullet encounters curved skull bone, it almost always deflects. Here is a cavity of air in Kennedy's throat shown in the X-ray, showing a possible trajectory with a missile traveling down the neck tissues, deflecting off the first rib, and exiting the throat:

 

[Axxman300]

First, Dr. Pierre Finck was one of the three lead autopsy doctors, and he was a forensic pathologist specializing in gunshot wounds in the military.

Also, already explained why a trajectory from the EOP to the top of the head almost certainly can't be true:

Except it is, you can see it on film.

1. The trajectory between the original EOP wound location and the top-right side of the head, at Zapruder frame 312-313, would require a sharp upwards deflection of the bullet,

It's called CAVITATION, not deflection, and the long 6.5x52mm round turned into a buzz saw inside the President's skull.

Why you refuse to learn basic ballistics is confusing.

2. The pattern of fragments on the head X-rays are entirely on the top of the head, besides the one possible minute fragment in the upper neck. A trajectory from the original EOP location to the top of the head would probably leave bullet fragments in the occipital-cerebellar are,

First - YOU HAVE NOT SEEN ALL OF THE X-RAYS SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY SHOW. There are 2 x-rays available, and they show exactly what the autopsy says.

Plus, your ignorance of ballistics makes you incapable of postulating what kind of fragmentation a bullet would have.

3. A trajectory from the original EOP location to the top-right side of the head would severely damage the cerebellum. The official brain photographs show only a slightly disrupted cerebellum.

The bullet came in above the cerebellum. In fact, one of the millions of reasons your "Lower EOP" can't work is the LACK of damage to the cerebellum.

At least Oswald didn't shoot himself in the foot.

Do you think the EOP-throat connection would be a straight line like this drawing from this 11/23/1963 Boston Globe article? No, it would have involved a bullet or a fragment of a bullet deflecting sharply downward after entering near the EOP. When a bullet encounters curved skull bone, it almost always deflects. Here is a cavity of air in Kennedy's throat shown in the X-ray, showing a possible trajectory with a missile traveling down the neck tissues, deflecting off the first rib, and exiting the throat:

Again, are we basing this one the hundreds of thousands of rounds you have personally fired? Perhaps this is based on your years of hunting game with a high powered rifle?

Everything you just typed is wrong.

JFK's wounds are exclusive to the 6.5x52mm round.

And you can't read x-rays either, apparently.

 

[bknight]

First, Dr. Pierre Finck was one of the three lead autopsy doctors, and he was a forensic pathologist specializing in gunshot wounds in the military.

As you have already mentioned at least once, but you dodge the fact that the other two doctors did not have that training, why do you dodge?

Also, already explained why a trajectory from the EOP to the top of the head almost certainly can't be true:

Only in your mind, not the rest of us, there is no problem with the trajectory, except in your(CT's minds)

1. The trajectory between the original EOP wound location and the top-right side of the head, at Zapruder frame 312-313, would require a sharp upwards deflection of the bullet,

Where you dream this up? The trajectory is a straight line of flight. Look at the film and or frame images

2. The pattern of fragments on the head X-rays are entirely on the top of the head, besides the one possible minute fragment in the upper neck. A trajectory from the original EOP location to the top of the head would probably leave bullet fragments in the occipital-cerebellar are,

You just shot your own conjecture enumerated in number 1, thanks.

3. A trajectory from the original EOP location to the top-right side of the head would severely damage the cerebellum. The official brain photographs show only a slightly disrupted cerebellum.

You haven't seen the official images of he brain, and that has been pointed out to you numerous times, how do you make such claims?

Do you think the EOP-throat connection would be a straight line like this drawing from this 11/23/1963 Boston Globe article? No, it would have involved a bullet or a fragment of a bullet deflecting sharply downwards after entering near the EOP. When a bullet encounters curved skull bone, it almost always deflects. Here is a cavity of air in Kennedy's throat shown in the X-ray, showing a possible trajectory with a missile traveling down the neck tissues, deflecting off the first rib, and exiting the throat:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/17y66Cb.jpg[/qimg]

That shot hit him in the back, not the head.

 

[HSienzant]

First, Dr. Pierre Finck was one of the three lead autopsy doctors, and he was a forensic pathologist specializing in gunshot wounds in the military.

Yes, this is true. But you avoid his conclusions and proceed to tell us yours below.

Also, already explained why a trajectory from the EOP to the top of the head almost certainly can't be true:

This is not Dr. Finck's conclusion, is it? In fact, after telling us what an expert Finck was, you then proceed to contradict the autopsy report that Finck signed off on, isn't that correct? Why cite the expertise of Finck if you're going to ignore it?

1. The trajectory between the original EOP wound location and the top-right side of the head, at Zapruder frame 312-313, would require a sharp upwards deflection of the bullet,

2. The pattern of fragments on the head X-rays are entirely on the top of the head, besides the one possible minute fragment in the upper neck. A trajectory from the original EOP location to the top of the head would probably leave bullet fragments in the occipital-cerebellar are,

3. A trajectory from the original EOP location to the top-right side of the head would severely damage the cerebellum. The official brain photographs show only a slightly disrupted cerebellum.

These are not reasons Finck gave for disbelieving the path from the EOP to the exit wound in the top of the head, are they? In fact, Dr. Finck, along with the two other autopsy doctors (Humes and Boswell), all agreed that the bullet that struck JFK in the back of the head exited the top front of the head, right?

Do you think the EOP-throat connection would be a straight line like this drawing from this 11/23/1963 Boston Globe article?

We covered this in detail in the past. The article does not source the autopsy, but the comments of Dr. Perry at Parkland Hospital. It is a conjecture built upon Perry's statements, and the article is quite clear about that:
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adams Apple and leaving by the back of the head.
Since that statement Friday afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing [that is, the Depository] that the bullet entered the back of the head and came out just under the Adams Apple."

From the above, it's clear the story - and the illustration - are conjecture based solely on the incomplete statements of Dr. Perry at Parkland. Remember Perry didn't even know there were bullet entry wounds in the upper back or the back of the head.

The story was even written before the autopsy, as it clearly points out:
"More complete details are not expected until an autopsy is performed in Washington and this is considered likely to establish the criminality."

For you to pretend this drawing has any basis in fact is beyond bizarre, especially since all that was pointed out to you previously.

At this point you're just invoking a fringe reset, pretending all your arguments here weren't already discussed in detail and shown to be false. Repeating your claims doesn't make them more true. Going around in circles with the same arguments doesn't make you more right.

And just because you want to (understandably) ignore everything we discussed on this very topic in the prior thread doesn't mean we have to start over because you do.

Read these posts once more to refresh your memory on what we covered, what we learned, and where we left off:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11596500&postcount=2221
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11597990&postcount=2225
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11617565&postcount=2272
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11617962&postcount=2281
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11618004&postcount=2283
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11618962&postcount=2297

And while the Boston Globe story says the bullet entered the back of the head and exited the throat, you yourself stated the story disagrees with the official autopsy conclusions here:

In 1963, the official story was that a bullet entered the EOP and exited the top of the head.

So why are you referencing a newspaper story that is clearly based on conjecture based upon the incomplete information obtained from Dr. Perry's press conference, and ignoring the conclusions contained in the official autopsy report, or the review of the extant autopsy materials performed by the HSCA pathology panel?

No, it would have involved a bullet or a fragment of a bullet deflecting sharply downwards after entering near the EOP.

Was that the conclusions of Finck, Humes, and Boswell? If not, why did you bother to ever quote a word they said, or even invoke their names, since they obviously don't agree with you?

When a bullet encounters curved skull bone, it almost always deflects. Here is a cavity of air in Kennedy's throat shown in the X-ray, showing a possible trajectory with a missile traveling down the neck tissues, deflecting off the first rib, and exiting the throat:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/17y66Cb.jpg[/qimg]

Right, and the conclusions of the forensic pathologists who studied the extant autopsy evidence was that the above x-ray showed the path of the bullet that struck JFK in the upper back, not the path of a bullet that struck JFK in the head, right? And that was the conclusion of Finck, Humes, and Boswell when they had the body in front of them, isn't that right?

So again, it's you against the experts, and we should somehow believe you, right? If that's the case, why do you bother to quote the autopsy doctors at all, since you disagree with all their conclusions anyway?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

How, in 2017, could somebody believe in a single-assassin shooting scenario?

It's simple, really.

First off, bear in mind that JFK was shot to death, so the default position is one shooter (there must have been at least one, that much is a given). Any additional shooters beyond the first must be established with evidence.

Even if there was no evidence of Oswald's involvement whatsoever, we would know there was a minimum of one shooter because Kennedy died by gunfire.

Furthermore, there is no evidence of a second shooter.

None.

In addition, all the evidence points to one shooter. With that one shooter firing from the Depository with the weapon bearing the serial number C2766, that was ordered from Kleins by Oswald (order form in his handwriting) and paid for by Oswald (Money Order in his handwriting) and shipped by Kleins to his PO Box.

And again, remember, no evidence of a second shooter. There are a shipload of *arguments* for a second shooter, but when closely examined, those arguments do not withstand inspection.

That's how.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

We have what Humes, Boswell, and Finck claim to believe- that a bullet entered the EOP and exited the top of his head.

But that is not YOUR theory, is it? Your theory is the bullet entered the EOP and exited the throat. So we know you disagree with the autopsy doctors. So why are you quoting and citing them?

We have witnesses like Lipsey who say that the doctors seriously discussed two bullets entering the head.

And we also discussed Lipsey and when he testified to those recollections. Refresh our memory on how many decades after the fact Lipsey testified as to his recollections. And remind us of what the autopsy doctors concluded. Thanks much. No free fringe reset for you. We covered this in the past: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11755648&postcount=2405

Also, depending on when he's asked, Dr. Burkley gave a more ambiguous answer, saying several times that he either believed or suspected that more Kennedy was shot in the head more than once.

FALSE!

Burkley said "...the possibility of two bullets having wounded President John F. Kennedy's brain would have been eliminated" if he had been called to testify to the Warren Commission. We dealt with this in the past. Keep going for the fringe reset, and pretending we never discussed this extensively in the past. For example:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11755259&postcount=2393

An extended interview with more questioning and elaboration was never requested nor granted. The HSCA staff never even thought to ask him about the location of the small head wound, probably because they wanted to nurse their "cowlick" pet theory.

Except he told the HSCA: "Had the Warren Commission deemed to call me, I would have stated why I retained the brain and the possibility of two bullets having wounded President John F. Kennedy's brain would have been eliminated."

What does it matter to you? You cannot use the autopsy doctor's conclusions as evidence for the cowlick entry theory. They always shouted from the highest mountains that the entry wound they saw was near the EOP and not in the "cowlick".

Hilarious. They also concluded (not sure about their ascent to Everest to shout anything, however) the bullet that struck JFK in the back of the head exited the top of the head, contrary to your pet theory. So you disagree with them at least as much as anyone else here, if not more so. They also concluded there was only one shot to the head (you have argued for two). Again, you don't get to suggest I am wrong for supposedly ignoring the conclusions of the autopsy doctors while you are clearly guilty of the very thing you try to lay at my feet.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Yes, this is true. But you avoid his conclusions and proceed to tell us yours below.

This is not Dr. Finck's conclusion, is it? In fact, after telling us what an expert Finck was, you then proceed to contradict the autopsy report that Finck signed off on, isn't that correct? Why cite the expertise of Finck if you're going to ignore it?

These are not reasons Finck gave for disbelieving the path from the EOP to the exit wound in the top of the head, are they? In fact, Dr. Finck, along with the two other autopsy doctors (Humes and Boswell), all agreed that the bullet that struck JFK in the back of the head exited the top front of the head, right?

This routine isn't going to stop me from constantly pointing out the EOP stuff. I know the doctors officially concluded that a single bullet entered the back of the head (near the EOP) and exited the top of the head. Of course, you do know that there is ambiguity with what the Doctors truly believed. Dr. Burkley, Kennedy's personal physician who witnessed the autopsy, said several times that he either suspected or believed that more than one bullet entered the head. He told author Henry Hurt that he "always believed in a conspiracy". Autopsy witnesses like Richard Lipsey described the doctors discussing two bullets entering the head, one of which entered near the EOP and exited the throat.

If you want to use evidence to suggest a way that a bullet could've entered near the EOP and exited the top of the head, go ahead.

We covered this in detail in the past. The article does not source the autopsy, but the comments of Dr. Perry at Parkland Hospital. It is a conjecture built upon Perry's statements, and the article is quite clear about that:
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adams Apple and leaving by the back of the head.
Since that statement Friday afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing [that is, the Depository] that the bullet entered the back of the head and came out just under the Adams Apple."

From the above, it's clear the story - and the illustration - are conjecture based solely on the incomplete statements of Dr. Perry at Parkland. Remember Perry didn't even know there were bullet entry wounds in the upper back or the back of the head.

The story was even written before the autopsy, as it clearly points out:
"More complete details are not expected until an autopsy is performed in Washington and this is considered likely to establish the criminality."

For you to pretend this drawing has any basis in fact is beyond bizarre, especially since all that was pointed out to you previously.

At this point you're just invoking a fringe reset, pretending all your arguments here weren't already discussed in detail and shown to be false. Repeating your claims doesn't make them more true. Going around in circles with the same arguments doesn't make you more right.

And just because you want to (understandably) ignore everything we discussed on this very topic in the prior thread doesn't mean we have to start over because you do.

Read these posts once more to refresh your memory on what we covered, what we learned, and where we left off:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11596500&postcount=2221
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11597990&postcount=2225
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11617565&postcount=2272
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11617962&postcount=2281
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11618004&postcount=2283
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11618962&postcount=2297

And while the Boston Globe story says the bullet entered the back of the head and exited the throat, you yourself stated the story disagrees with the official autopsy conclusions here:

So why are you referencing a newspaper story that is clearly based on conjecture based upon the incomplete information obtained from Dr. Perry's press conference, and ignoring the conclusions contained in the official autopsy report, or the review of the extant autopsy materials performed by the HSCA pathology panel?

The link to the Boston Globe bit was for illustrative purposes only. At first, If found to hard to believe that the Boston Globe article wasn't based on leaked information from the autopsy because it showed a bullet entry right where the autopsy report said it was, near the EOP. Subsequently, you convinced me that it was probably an odd coincidence. Maybe it traces back to the initial "occipital" descriptions of the large head wound.

Right, and the conclusions of the forensic pathologists who studied the extant autopsy evidence was that the above x-ray showed the path of the bullet that struck JFK in the upper back, not the path of a bullet that struck JFK in the head, right? And that was the conclusion of Finck, Humes, and Boswell when they had the body in front of them, isn't that right?

So again, it's you against the experts, and we should somehow believe you, right? If that's the case, why do you bother to quote the autopsy doctors at all, since you disagree with all their conclusions anyway?

Hank

Where did Finck, Humes, and Boswell claim that they thought the air cavity on the torso X-ray was a bullet track? I know that John Stringer said he remembered the Doctors discussing "air in the throat" in relation to the anterior neck wound on the night of the autopsy.