Like I said, it's like Turbonium's whole argument: A complete farce.

Like Oswald working for the CIA?

You claim that the autopsy "was a complete farce", and then turn around and use the "findings" in the autopsy to support your position. Don't you realize that this is rather sloppy thinking and makes a rather sloppy argument?

First of all, you've taken "the autopsy was a complete farce" to assert that I meant "each and every single point of the autopsy was incorrect" - which is patently absurd. You could take that to any length, from assuming I meant everything from the name of the deceased, to the time of death, to the date of the autopsy as recorded on the report is false.

I said the autopsy was a complete farce to describe the overall quality of the procedure. Specifically, in the method it was conducted, Dr. Humes' burning of his notes, poor quality subject photographs, and several inconsistencies and errors. I have no argument with the correct date, subject name, or time of autopsy as recorded in the report! One of the few consistent findings was in fact that no exit point was found for the back wound.

Now, I'd like to ask Spitfire a couple of questions...

1. Do you dispute the autopsy finding no exit point for the back wound?

2. If so, what evidence can you provide to support that opinion?