1) You stated that the opinions of the Parkland doctors about whether or not the throat wound was an entry wound were the only ones that mattered. Are you still willing to accept that, as it clearly flies in the face of your assertions, or are you going to claim that Arlen Specter was pointing a sawed-off shotgun at them as they testified, or some other such handwaving?

2) In view of the foregoing, do you still consider the Single Bullet Theory "utterly ludicrous?"

The statements from Carrico and Perry do not refute my assertions - they both claimed later during WC testimony, as you emphasized, that they did not know if it was an entry or exit wound. And Dr. Perry even said In the press conference I indicated that the neck wound appeared like an entrance wound, and I based this mainly on its size and the fact that exit wounds in general tend to be somewhat ragged and somewhat different from entrance wounds.

And Specter didn't need to point a gun at the doctors, with the absolutely ridiculous lengths that he took in a blatant attempt to mislead and stray from the actual known facts of the case....

Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.

What a joke! Since when do "facts" become things one has "to assume as being true"?!? The entire line of questioning based on unfounded assumptions is completely worthless. What's the point in asking for opinions based on whatever "facts" the questioner simply makes up? How about.....

Mr. Specter: "Dr. Perry, let's assume there was a 3000 lb. pink elephant named "Lulu" sitting beside the President. Assume as well, that "Lulu" was carrying a Makita 18v portable drill with variable speed. Let's further assume that "Lulu" bored a 6.5 mm hole into the President's back at a 45 degree downward angle, hitting no bone as it went through muscle tissue and the right lung, until it exited the hole you said was at the midline of the neck. Now, assuming those "facts" to be true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances?"

Dr. Perry: "Certainly would be consistent with an exit wound."

Mr. Spector: "Would you agree, Dr. Carrico?"

Dr. Carrico: "Yup."

Wow! That sure would convince me that the throat wound was an exit wound!

Both doctors you cite did in fact describe the throat wound as an entry wound. Dr. Perry has already been mentioned, and Dr. Charles Carrico, who saw the throat wound even before Kennedy's shirt was removed, described the wound as a "small penetrating wound" in his 11/22/63 report (WCR 519; CE 392).

And you failed to mention any other witnesses (just an oversight, I'm sure).

In a taped 1979 interview, Dr. Charles Baxter, who was one of the Parkland doctors who saw the wound, said the wound "was no more than a pinpoint." He added that it was "made by a small caliber weapon. And it was an entry wound"

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id65.htm

Dr. Ronald Jones described the President’s throat wound as being “compatible with an entrance wound.” In his handwritten report of November 22, 1963, the injury was noted as “a small hole in [the] anterior midline of [the] neck thought to be a bullet entrance wound” (WCH 20, page 333). Twenty-nine years later, he stated that “I would stand by my original impression.”

http://www.jfklancer.com/parkland_drs.html

Dr.Charles Crenshaw said...

"I considered the throat wound to be an entrance wound and the large head wound to be an exit wound. Along with many of my Parkland colleagues, I believed at the time that President Kennedy had been hit twice from the front."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcrenshawC.htm

The Parkland doctors, as I said, all agreed that the throat wound was an entry wound. And the doctors and all others present at the autopsy were unanimous (despite Dr. Humes only willing to state that probing was "difficult") that the back wound was a shallow entry wound, only a few inches deep when probed, and had no exit point. James Jenkins has consistently maintained this to be absolutely factual.

So to answer your second question: In view of the overwhelming evidence, the SBT is indeed utterly ludicrous.