Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Axxman300]

One of the pieces of evidence that collectively and individually proves the small wound near Kennedy's external occipital protuberance:

1. Dr. Finck arrived to the autopsy after the brain had already been removed.

How is this evidence of anything other than Finck was late?

2. Finck repeatedly stated that he could examine this wound in the scalp as well as the outer and inner surface of Kennedy's empty cranium.

So...you're saying Kennedy was shot in the head?

3. In order to remove a brain, you must first separate the top of the skull. The area endorsed by the HSCA as the location of the entry wound, 4-5 inches above the external occipital protuberance rather than right next to it, would have to be among the areas of skull separated.

But how did they remove Kennedy's brain?

This is not evidence, you make a statement based on Wikipedia as if it definitive to all autopsies ever performed.

The question is: How did they remove JFK's brain?

The answer is that they did it the conventional way for the majority of the skull using a bone saw. In the areas where the skull fracturing was severe they either cut carefully, or eased the brain out by manipulating the fractures.

We know this because Humes recounted this process.

4. Since the purported cowlick defect is right beside the large head wound, and the Doctor's statements indicated that the area around the large defect was so damaged that virtually no sawing of the skull was necessary to remove the top of the skull, any entry in the skull 4-5 inches above the external occipital protuberance would also separate.

You lie.

Dr. Hume detailed the removal of the brain. We've linked to it twice. You have posted photos of the head that show that the scalp was excised, and the skull sawed on the left side. Your own cut and paste storm contradicts your statement.

5. Dr. Finck repeatedly denied that the entry wound he examined was a previously-removed fragment of skull bone. He emphasized that the wound he examined was undisturbed by the brain removal procedure.

Normal people read this and immediately understand that they cut around the section of the skull with the bullet hole. The 6.5x52mm bullet made this an easy job.

6. At least a couple of later statements by the autopsy doctors indicate that a special incision was made low in the scalp to expose the outer surface of the small wound low near the base of the head, after the scalp had already been reflected to remove the top of the skull.

And why do you think they did this?

Preserving the wound area perhaps? How is this in any way suspicious?

 

[HSienzant]

We have discussed the sound issues with the Plaza many times. Ear-witness testimony is unreliable.

Not if there's over 100 ear-witnesses.

So they are more reliable when nearly all of them are wrong as opposed to half of them?

Granting for the moment your claim that the witnesses were split relatively evenly for the knoll vs. the Depository as the source of the shots (that's not close to true, but I'll grant it for the time being), your claim that any of these witnesses could be accurate and confirm your theorizing is beyond belief.

First of all, let's point out that only a very few (less than five) witnesses suggested shots came from multiple locations.

Out of all the other witnesses who responded, most named ONE location only (many others said "don't know").

And that one location varied, from "the overpass", "the railroad yards", "the Sexton Building" (the old name for the Depository), "the Depository", etc.

Lumping all non-Depository responses (like "overpass") into grassy knoll responses inflates that count for the knoll, but that's not even my complaint here.

Your arguments conflict with each other. You cannot argue for reliable witnesses AND argue for multiple shooting locations. But that's exactly what you do.

Why do they conflict?

Because the vast majority of witnesses thought the shots came from ONE location, not several. But in your theory all the shots didn't come from one place, the shots came from several different locations.

So all the witnesses who thought all the shots came from the knoll must be wrong about the location of some of the "other" shots, which came from the Depository and elsewhere, according to your theory.

And all the witnesses who thought all the shots came from the Depository must be wrong about the location of some of the "other" shots, which came from the knoll and elsewhere, according to your theory.

You cannot reconcile your two arguments, for reliable witnesses AND multiple shooting locations, because nearly all the witnesses who named a source named one location, not multiple locations. So all those witnesses who named only one source got it wrong, and that makes them unreliable.

My theory has only about half (it's actually fewer than that) the witnesses being wrong for thinking all the shots came from the knoll. And the other half (those who thought all the shots came from the Depository) being right.

Only conspiracy-land theorists like yourself would think claiming nearly 100% of the witnesses got the location of some of the shots wrong would establish to a reasonable person's satisfaction that witnesses are reliable. I'm sure you think that's some high-level thinking on your part. Most people would see right through that delusional nonsense.

How reliable can witnesses be when nearly all of them thought shots came from one location, and your theory has multiple shooting locations? They were nearly all wrong about the source of some of your shots, according to your own arguments.

I asked you this before, and you ignored the question.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

Nope, we've been over this and you lost. I provided a generous sampling of personal accounts from gun forums that using a noise-suppressor in conjunction with supersonic ammunition. JFK Form-user Robert Prudhomme has used this to argue that shots from behind created the illusion of gunshots from the knoll area.

Now you just need to provide evidence of those suppressors, rifles, ammunition and shooters. What does your one CT source have to say about all that? Hilarious!

 

[Axxman300]

The "new sonic test" crap was from Tracking Oswald part five.

Arnaldo M. Fernandez of KennedysandKing.com wrote this in a review of that show:

A guy on a CT site thought the test was crap? Be-still my heart.

For now he goes on and conducts what he calls an acoustics test. According to him, dozens of ear witnesses4 who heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll were actually confused due to “the amphitheater effect.” The real sound coming from the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) would have echoed at the so-called triple underpass and other hard structures in Dealey Plaza.

Because it's what happened.

My favorite part:

the so-called triple underpass

. So this guy is suspicious of the triple underpass's name?

To construct this “explosive theory,” Baer went to the crime scene with sound engineers and equipment that “nobody used before”.

Actually, if you watched the episode, the equipment is standard acoustic gear, it just hadn't been used in Dealey Plaza.

He just forgot to adjust the experiment setting to the standards of historical reconstruction.5 Not a single person was placed where a certain witness had been watching the presidential motorcade, and the sounds of the shooting weren’t generated by firing the rifle at the sniper nest. They were recorded elsewhere and played thereafter from near the TSBD. No kidding.

Baer also didn't use a payphone for the same reason - it's 2017. No kidding.

The equipment mapped Dealey Plaza's sonic footprint, so they didn't need to put people out around the plaza, for the same reason nobody uses abacus any more.

This guy's really going to flip out when he finds out doctors don't do blood-letting for gout any more.

What is kind of shocking about this so-called acoustics test is that Baer completely ignores its far superior predecessor.

If the HSCA was done today they'd use the equipment and software Baer used...because why rely on 1975 technology?

D

uring the proceedings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, (HSCA) that body did an acoustics test in Dealey Plaza. Except their testing was live and they brought riflemen into the plaza. And from that and their work with and analysis of the 11/22/63 dictabelt recording from Dealey Plaza by a Dallas policeman on a motorcycle, they concluded the following: 1.) Someone fired from the grassy knoll, and 2.) There were five shots fired that day. (Which, as Don Thomas reveals in his book Hear No Evil, for political reasons, Chief Counsel Robert Blakey reduced to four.)

So the only reason this guy liked the HSCA test is it falls in line with his pet CT.

But, if one can comprehend it, Baer completely ignored the HSCA precedent, which included two teams of the finest audio scientists in the country.

And how would the finest audio scientists conduct the experiment today? Would they use 42 year-old technology?

Barger did scientific testing of the actual sound wave patterns produced in Dealey Plaza at that time. Barger’s findings were passed on to Professor Mark Weiss and his associate Ernest Aschkenasy.

In the seventies he did this. How long would it take him today?

To imply, as Baer does, that those three men spent as much time and testing as they did and could not separate an echo from a live shot is ridiculous.

Not if you understand the technology and the experiment.

But Baer and his program are so agenda driven that it is as if these previous tests never happened. He brings in some audio recordings, some computer programmers, pays them a few bucks and with these stage props he has somehow eliminated the second gunman in the JFK case. Pure and utter poppycock. Baer’s level of science here would not pass muster at a good high school’s Science Fair.

Pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Axxman300]

What part out of six? Nobody went firing real shots in Dealey Plaza. The knoll/Depository split is half-and-half with the witnesses more or less regardless of where they stood. "New sonic test"? What?

I know science frightens you, but the what they did was map the acoustical footprint of Dealey Plaza. This allowed them to simulate how sound waves move and reflect within this space, and the quality/degradation of the sound as it traveled.

Sound is something science has a good handle on. Sound waves are not equal. For example I could never hear my bass player when we practiced because we were in a small room. The bass frequencies don't resolve for 12 feet from the speaker, and that's where you put the microphone.

Nope, we've been over this and you lost. I provided a generous sampling of personal accounts from gun forums that using a noise-suppressor in conjunction with supersonic ammunition. JFK Form-user Robert Prudhomme has used this to argue that shots from behind created the illusion of gunshots from the knoll area.

And you quote another CT loon. Cool.

Why would you use a suppressor with supersonic ammunition and then hope the sound travels the way you need it to? Do you understand how stupid that is? I can't think of anyone I know who has used a suppressor in combat who thought the device made them invisible. The enemy sure found them fast after a few shots.

And you're asking a lot from 1963 silencer technology.

Not if there's over 100 ear-witnesses.

Even if it's 1,000 witnesses. What they heard depended on where they stood. That's the truth.

 

[HSienzant]

My favorite part:

the so-called triple underpass

.
So this guy is suspicious of the triple underpass's name?

Truth be told, it has an alias. It sometimes goes by the name of "the Triple Overpass".

The original literature (as well as most Dallas citizens) referred to the structure pretty much 50-50 for each name.

But over the years, "Triple Underpass" has fallen out of favor in the CT literature, and "Triple Overpass" has become the predominant name for the structure.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

I like how for a while now some of you guys have just resorted to constantly implying that the issues with the medical evidence can just be dismissed as if it had already been refuted in previous, more epic Internet jousts that everybody remembers.

Nobody can refute the mountain of evidence for the EOP wound, because most of the evidence for it lies in the overwhelming consensus between witnesses to Kennedy's body. Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, John Stringer, Charles Boyers, George Burkley Roy Kellerman, Richard Lipsey, and you could probably add Tom Robinson to that list because he not only told the HSCA that he saw the doctors inserting a probe in the base of the head, but also told the ARRB that he saw the end of the probe emerge from the tracheotomy site.

But let's take a quick look at EOP wound witness Francis X. O'Neil.

In his deposition to the HSCA on 1/10/1978, "O'Neill said that the autopsy doctors felt that the bullet that entered the head struck the center, low portion of the head and exited from the top, right side, towards the front.".

Here are the diagrams he drew:

O'Neil is the only person to ever draw a diagram of Kennedy's head wounds from memory and place the mark representing entry above the ears. It's a crude drawing, but it's technically above the level of the ears. However, it is not anatomically correct. Kenney's real hairline would be lower in relation to his ears, for example. His placement on his drawing is nowhere near the top of the head where the theoretical "upper cowlick entry wound" was. O'Neil obviously qualifies as a strong EOP wound witness, this is sealed by his description "center, low portion of the head".

Would you call this the "lower portion" of your head?

No, that trajectory enters the top of the head. But the wound the autopsy doctors remember was on the lower portion of the back of Kennedy's head. No autopsy participant ever described that wound as being on the top of the head.

P.S. O'Neil did not elaborate on this wound he reported seeing while testifying to the ARRB or being interviewed by Law.

 

[Axxman300]

I like how for a while now some of you guys have just resorted to constantly implying that the issues with the medical evidence can just be dismissed as if it had already been refuted in previous, more epic Internet jousts that everybody remembers.

Not just the internet. And yes, it's been crushed..

Nobody can refute the mountain of evidence for the EOP wound,

True, it doesn't exist. Can't refute something that doesn't exist.

because most of the evidence for it lies in the overwhelming consensus between witnesses to Kennedy's body. Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, John Stringer, Charles Boyers, George Burkley Roy Kellerman, Richard Lipsey,

Humes and Finck disagree with your failed assessment.

Richard Lipsey was not a doctor, and he says this:

"The more I started thinking about it, the more I was able to put the picture together myself," Lipsey said.

He read the conspiracy theories, he looked at the photographs, he watched the Oliver Stone movie and he read the books. It all comes down to one thing: He's certain Lee Harvey Oswald did it.

"This guy was a nut, and he was going to show everybody," Lipsey said. "Everybody thought he was nuts, but he was going to show everybody that he can pull off the big one. ... Everybody has a theory about who put him up to it. Maybe they did? But there's just no evidence that ties him to any particular group."

Source: http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/11/baton_rouge_man_recounts_jfk_a.html [sorry, not a CT source]

and you could probably add Tom Robinson to that list because he not only told the HSCA that he saw the doctors inserting a probe in the base of the head, but also told the ARRB that he saw the end of the probe emerge from the tracheotomy site.

Uh huh...cool story, bro.

O'Neil is the only person to ever draw a diagram of Kennedy's head wounds from memory and place the mark representing entry above the ears.

So what? It doesn't matter what he drew from memory. The photos and x-rays are all that count.

No, that trajectory enters the top of the head. But the wound the autopsy doctors remember was on the lower portion of the back of Kennedy's head. No autopsy participant ever described that wound as being on the top of the head.

That is not the top of the head. Plus, nobody cares.

Your pet theory is dependent on all of the film evidence, and eye-witness evidence, and the autopsy all being wrong. You base it on cherry-picked quotes, and CTist woo without any honest brokers in the mix.

Your meltdown today indicates you know you've have nothing solid to offer in the way of evidence, that's why we have to suffer through well worn out theories about acoustic evidence, silenced weapons, and other nonsense.

 

[pgwenthold]

Yeah, we covered every one of those items in the past. Your conclusions don't mean squat.

BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT A RECOGNIZED EXPERT IN THE FIELD.

Wecht's conclusions do mean squat.

And he said no shots from the right front. And only one shot to the head.

Right?

And I'm still waiting for you to address my points, not ignore them:

The denial is all yours. It says he worked for the coroner's office in 1974. It doesn't say in what capacity.

Where does it say he was a qualified forensic pathologist?

And wasn't your complaint those guys (forensic pathologists) aren't qualified to read x-rays, anyway?

Why do your objections to the HSCA forensic pathology panel melt away when one of them says something you like?

And here's part of Wecht's conclusion:

5.3. ...So far as the available medical evidence shows, all shots were fired from the rear. No support can be found for theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right-front of the Presidential car. The medical evidence indicates that the President’s back was hit by one bullet and that his head was hit by one other bullet only.

So NO SUPPORT for your grassy knoll theory, nor for your two shots to the head.

You introduced this document as evidence. Now you're going to tell us Wecht was wrong, right?

Hank

For cripes sake, listen to Cyril Wecht's crap on the "magic bullet." It's total nonsense. Because he wasn't smart enough to put the people seated in the car in the right positions.

He has no credibility in this case.

Credentials or not, how can you trust anything by a guy who is known to be so obviously wrong?

 

[turingtest]

Am I reading all this right? MJ's go-to argument is to cite the autopsy doctors' evidence in order to impeach their conclusions? "This is what the doctors said, but I don't care what they said"? His issue (not the issue) with the medical evidence, as put forth by the doctors who saw the body (or, later, the photos and X-rays), is that he thinks the entry wound was too low on the back of the head to have come from Oswald's high position. Wherever that wound was, those doctors had no problem with their evidence leading to the conclusion that it was consistent with that trajectory; MJ, from the weighty depths of his GoogleU education, begs to differ.

Ha.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I like how for a while now some of you guys have just resorted to constantly implying that the issues with the medical evidence can just be dismissed as if it had already been refuted in previous, more epic Internet jousts that everybody remembers.

I'm glad you like it because the fact that we're right and you're wrong isn't going away. Doesn't it bother you that you've not gotten even one thing right?

Where did your bullet come from? Are you still running away from answering?

 

[HSienzant]

But let's take a quick look at EOP wound witness Francis X. O'Neil. In his deposition to the HSCA on 1/10/1978...

So you lead in your desperate search for a change of subject with a 15-year after-the-fact recollection.

That we have already discussed in the past and told you why it won't do. We know too much about memory, and we know how fallible it is.

Hilarious. Just another attempt at a fringe reset by you.

Sorry, no. That is not convincing.

Why not tell us why you think Mark Lane arguments are better than the multiple government investigations into this case? You made the claim but cannot cite anything that Mark Lane said that's accurate. Curious, isn't it?

You could also try to address any of the other open questions you scurried from after your preposterous claims were dismantled.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

For cripes sake, listen to Cyril Wecht's crap on the "magic bullet." It's total nonsense. Because he wasn't smart enough to put the people seated in the car in the right positions.

He has no credibility in this case.

Credentials or not, how can you trust anything by a guy who is known to be so obviously wrong?

Yes, I know.

What many people don't know is that Wecht, before he got sucked into conspiracy theory nonsense, actually reviewed the autopsy materials in the late 1960s and concluded the autopsy doctors got it exactly right. Even in the document cited by MicahJava, we can find no dispute with those conclusions.

I like to remind MicahJava that while he's dumpster diving for the one quote he needs to support his silly argument that the head shot exited the throat that even the guy who he's citing and who is a legitimate forensic pathology expert never said the autopsy doctors got it wrong.

Citing Wecht to protest the autopsy is a big mistake on MicahJava's part.

As you note, Wecht's biggest complaint is not with the autopsy conclusions (with which he agrees) but with the Warren Commission's conclusion about one bullet hitting both men and emerging with slight damage.

MJ confuses the two and thinks Wecht is on his side. He's not.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Am I reading all this right? MJ's go-to argument is to cite the autopsy doctors' evidence in order to impeach their conclusions? "This is what the doctors said, but I don't care what they said"? His issue (not the issue) with the medical evidence, as put forth by the doctors who saw the body (or, later, the photos and X-rays), is that he thinks the entry wound was too low on the back of the head to have come from Oswald's high position. Wherever that wound was, those doctors had no problem with their evidence leading to the conclusion that it was consistent with that trajectory; MJ, from the weighty depths of his GoogleU education, begs to differ.

Ha.

Yes, you're reading it right. MJ dumpster dives for quotes he can use, ignores the experts conclusions, and reaches his own. And expects that rock to float.

He does this repeatedly, with every expert he cites.

Hank

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, you're reading it right. MJ dumpster dives for quotes he can use, ignores the experts conclusions, and reaches his own. And expects that rock to float.

He does this repeatedly, with every expert he cites.

This is, let's not forget, the poster who recently accused The Big Dog of quote mining for providing context for the quote that he'd just posted a misleading extract from.

Dave

 

[Axxman300]

I will say it again, if you need the assassination to be a conspiracy you won't find it in Dealey Plaza.

Bob Baer's recent History Channel excursion is the way to go. Lot's of questions about Oswald's activities in New Orleans, and back in Dallas. Shady characters. Angry Cuban exiles. Sneaky Cuban spies.

All of those things were real, none of them are traceable today, and when you throw someone unstable like Oswald in the mix you you have the Rube Goldberg of CT's where nobody can be singled out or eliminated, and leaves Oswald as the lone shooter.

 

[MicahJava]

So you lead in your desperate search for a change of subject with a 15-year after-the-fact recollection.

That we have already discussed in the past and told you why it won't do. We know too much about memory, and we know how fallible it is.

Hilarious. Just another attempt at a fringe reset by you.

Sorry, no. That is not convincing.

Why not tell us why you think Mark Lane arguments are better than the multiple government investigations into this case? You made the claim but cannot cite anything that Mark Lane said that's accurate. Curious, isn't it?

You could also try to address any of the other open questions you scurried from after your preposterous claims were dismantled.

Hank

FBI Agents are trained to observe, remember and record what they see on a daily basis. So I think the 15-year-old testimony of O'Neil becomes significant because he was willing to communicate that the entry wound was in the lower head area.

Also, are you willing to say that Roy Kellerman was lying in his Warren Commission testimony to support the official story, or do you think that three months fudged his memory in exactly the same way? Kellerman pointed to his lower head area behind his ear to indicate the location of the wound and said the entry wound he claimed to witness was "within his hairline".

The EOP wound really is the greatest mystery in the forensic evidence, isn't it? It's almost as if the least you could do is declare the case impossible to solve. Nobody can claim to prove that all of Kennedy's wounds were caused by two shots fired from above and behind unless they start with the EOP wound. The single assassin scenario officially cannot be considered true unless further evidence can be brought forth. While it would be very important for a group of experts familiar with the technology used to create the autopsy photos and X-rays to look for evidence of a wound near the EOP, it ultimately does not matter very much now because the corroboration of the three autopsy doctors and six or more other autopsy witnesses is more than enough evidence.

 

[Axxman300]

FBI Agents are trained to observe, remember and record what they see on a daily basis.

Your faith in the FBI is clearly selective considering you discount the rest of their conclusions about the assassination. You can't have it both ways.

The EOP wound really is the greatest mystery in the forensic evidence, isn't it?

Only to you, it doesn't exist.

It's almost as if the least you could do is declare the case impossible to solve.

Hardly.

Nobody can claim to prove that all of Kennedy's wounds were caused by two shots fired from above and behind unless they start with the EOP wound.

Since the EOP wound is a fantasy so most intelligent people can prove it.

Your ignorance about the 6.5x52mm round is well documented.

The single assassin scenario officially cannot be considered true unless further evidence can be brought forth.

In your world maybe, out here there has always been enough evidence to prove Oswald's guilt.

While it would be very important for a group of experts familiar with the technology used to create the autopsy photos and X-rays to look for evidence of a wound near the EOP, it ultimately does not matter very much now because the corroboration of the three autopsy doctors and six or more other autopsy witnesses is more than enough evidence.

The photos and x-rays and the testimony of the pathologists say Kennedy was struck 2.5cm laterally and to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. The other round struck him in the upper right posterior thorax.

Sorry dude, only two Carcano round hit JFK from behind.

No silenced guns (lol).

 

[Axxman300]

October 26...next week...National Archives record release...

 

[HSienzant]

FBI Agents are trained to observe, remember and record what they see on a daily basis. So I think the 15-year-old testimony of O'Neil becomes significant because he was willing to communicate that the entry wound was in the lower head area.

Does this argument apply to all FBI agents at all times, or just O'Neill's 15-year after the fact recollection because you need it so badly?

Since he's so good at recording, please point out the precise location O'Neill recorded in his memorandum for the record shortly after the autopsy (rather than his 15 year later recollection).

You can find that memorandum here:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625#relPageId=4&tab=page

We saw the same argument from Robert Harris about a rifle found on the fourth floor near a stairwell. That wasn't a poor recollection, made decades later, about the rifle found on the sixth floor. And a simple mistake anyone could make. Oh no, Federal agents are better at this sort of thing because Harris needed a second rifle in the Depository and by golly, it just had to be true.

It's not. What contemporaneous statements of O'Neil do you have confirming this wound location you claim O'Neill was trained to record?

Also, are you willing to say that Roy Kellerman was lying in his Warren Commission testimony to support the official story, or do you think that three months fudged his memory in exactly the same way?

Exactly the same way? Not at all.

Kellerman pointed to his lower head area behind his ear to indicate the location of the wound and said the entry wound he claimed to witness was "within his hairline".

That location would be far too low if it was located at the hairline. It's below the EOP by inches and misses the skull entirely. If it's being placed within the hair, that is meaningless, as it could be anywhere on his head.

The EOP wound really is the greatest mystery in the forensic evidence, isn't it? It's almost as if the least you could do is declare the case impossible to solve. Nobody can claim to prove that all of Kennedy's wounds were caused by two shots fired from above and behind unless they start with the EOP wound.

There are numerous forensic pathologists who studied the evidence who beg to differ with you.

The single assassin scenario officially cannot be considered true unless further evidence can be brought forth.

We have plenty of evidence, but you have an outsized tendency to ignore it all.

There's the autopsy x-rays.
The autopsy photos.
The autopsy report.
The reviews of the extants autopsy materials by various pathologists.
The rifle recovered from the Depository.
The three shells recovered from the Depository.
The two large fragments of a bullet recovered from the limo
The nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland.
Oswald's fresh fingerprints on the trigger guard.
The paper bag recovered from the Depository with Oswald's prints on it.
The two witnesses to Oswald with a large paper bag on the morning of the assassination.
The suspect making a special trip on a Thursday back to the place where his rifle was stored within the garage of a woman his wife was staying with.
The suspect attempting to patch things up with his wife that evening, telling her he'd buy her the washing machine she wanted, if only she'd move back in with him.
The wife telling him, "No thank you, buy something nice for yourself.
And the rifle missing from its storage place the next discovered.

Together, all these pieces of evidence tell a uniform story of a disgruntled young man who wanted to be famous. And accomplished that.

There really isn't anything else needed.

While it would be very important for a group of experts familiar with the technology used to create the autopsy photos and X-rays to look for evidence of a wound near the EOP, it ultimately does not matter very much now because the corroboration of the three autopsy doctors and six or more other autopsy witnesses is more than enough evidence.

All from decades after the fact, cherry-picked by you, caused by a magic bullet that you can't even get out of the head, yet wasn't found within the head, with contrary recollections all dismissed by you as wrong?
Fired from a rifle you have no evidence of?
By a shooter nobody saw?
Causing damage that left no evidence behind?
And then another bullet that left no trace struck the head from another unseen gunman causing damage that fooled everyone but you into thinking it was an exit wound?

No, not hardly sufficient.

Hank