Whoa. You are making some unfounded claims here
Hmmm--
turbonium is accusing someone of making unfounded claims...
That one bullet entered the back and exited at the throat. As mentioned earlier, all the Parkland doctors stated that the throat wound was a very small entry wound, and the autopsy clearly established that the back wound was a shallow entry wound with no exit point
See my two-part post above
A downward trajectory for the neck wound is also an unfounded claim. The actual trajectory of the throat wound was not established, and was described by all the doctors at Parkland as a small entrance wound
Ditto.
I said that all those present at the autopsy, including the doctors, had established beyond any doubt that JFK's back wound was shallow and had no exit point. And yes, the throat wound was also solidly established at Parkland as an entry wound. Why do you claim that both wounds had to be from two bullets hitting JFK "in exactly the opposite directions at the same time"?
turbonium, your use of the terms "beyond any doubt" and "solidly established" qualifies as troll-like behavior. You can obviously read and write English at a reasonably educated level, so it's clear that you're being deliberately obtuse by ignoring the very strong evidence presented that there is at least some doubt about both of these "facts."
No - all the observations, whether brief or not, corroborate the fact that JFK's back wound was a shallow wound with no exit point, and his throat wound was a very small entry wound. Furthermore, the throat wound was at most only 5 mm in diameter, likely only 3 mm dia. - too small to have been made by the alleged 6.5 mm bullets fired from the Carcano rifle allegedly used by Oswald.
Is this another "factoid,"
turbonium, or did you just make this up yourself?
The estimates of the wound diameter are as follows:
Perry: 5 mm (WC)
Carrico: 5-8 mm (WC)
Baxter: 4-5 mm (WC)
Jones: <= 6mm (WC)
Also, from
forensicmed.co.uk:
Quote:
www.forensicmed.co.uk
[entrance wounds cause] a smaller defect than the diameter of the bullet due to elastic recoil of the skin....
[exit wounds] may be similar to the entrance wound in size if the bullet was fired from a high velocity rifle shot at long distance (eg a military rifle)
|
In light of the above,
turbonium, I specifically request that you retract the above claim, or else provide some real evidence for it.
Unfounded SBT claim once again - why insist a single bullet entered the back and exited the throat when it's well established that it didn't?
Well established in your and other conspiracists' minds.
As for experience - Dr. Humes, who conducted the autopsy was not only unfamiliar with "Carcano wounds", he was unfamiliar with any bullet wounds. He was conducting his first ever autopsy involving bullet wounds - starting with the President no less!
And yet, you contend that his initial impression that the back wound was a "shallow entry wound" was infallably accurate. I'd have to characterize that as "utterly ludicrous."
(Only the best for our dearly departed Jack).
As usual, you're out of line,
turbonium. I explained that Bethesda was chosen by Jackie Kennedy because of JFK's Navy service. Undoubtedly for reasons of pride, the Navy chose not to engage a qualified forensic pathologist to assist with the autopsy. The fact that Kennedy was a public figure does not entitle you to make comments like this--how do you suppose Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg or Senator Ted Kennedy would feel about your statement if they were to read this page (which they conceivably might)?