Given your obvious lack of education, as evidenced by your repeated junior-high-level writing and grammatical errors, you really should avoid using the word "ignorance," especially toward others.
This is the dictionary definition of the word "ignorance".
ig·nor·ance
[ˈɪɡnər(ə)n(t)s]
noun
ignorance (noun)
lack of knowledge or information
This is exactly what you exhibit when you argue that the only possible explanation for the neat round exit wound in JFK's throat could be it was shored up by JFK's shirt collar and tie. You seem not to know that FMJ bullets do not deform when striking soft tissue and as a result, will make small neat exit wound similar to an entrance wound. That lack of knowledge on your part is ignorance.
Your continued focus on my typos, which we all make, shows how lacking you are in substantive arguments. You think you score points with this petty practice of yours. All you accomplish with such childish observations is that you prove horse's asses outnumber horses.
Yeah, uh-huh. Blah, blah, blah. You have no clue what you're talking about. ALL of the exit wounds in the WC's SBT wound ballistics test were larger than the entry wounds -- every single one of them. Not even the HSCA FPP floated your ridiculous claim that FMJ bullets make entry and exit wounds that are the same size if they don't hit bone. Instead, the FPP majority appealed to the impossible shored-wound theory to explain the entry-like appearance of the throat wound.
Now you are proving that one can be a smartass and a dumbass at the same time. Of course all the other wounds caused by the single bullet did not make neat round holes because the bullet yawed upon exiting JFK's throat. I guess you were ignorant of that fact as well.
Plus, we've known since the 1990s via CT scans of males with the same torso dimensions as JFK that there was no path from the back wound to the throat wound that could have missed striking the vertebrae or missed tearing through the right lung. As usual, you are years behind the information curve.
Oh, I'm the one who is behind the information curve? That's funny coming from someone making the same lame arguments you were making on the Prodigy forum back in 1991. Your objections to the WCR are the same ones you and your cohorts were making back then. Those objections have been explained and refuted countless times on many forums since. But you continue to make the same stale arguments over and over as if your fallacies haven't been pointed out to you countless times. Your arguments were lame back in 1991 and they haven't improved with age.
I notice you are still in denial about the 1970s to 1990s disclosures that the autopsy doctors established for an absolute, observable fact that the back wound had no exit point. We've known for years from the released transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. The first draft correctly stated that the back wound had no exit point, which is also what the 11/26/63 Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy says ("Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/63, p. 4). Sibert and O'Neill both emphatically confirmed this in their ARRB testimony. Two witnesses at the autopsy independently confirmed that men around the autopsy table could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity -- it was at this point that Finck declared, "this wound has no exit."
I guess you are ignorant of Finck's testimony in the Clay Shaw trial that the failure of the probe to pass through the bullet channel is not proof the bullet had no exit. Not that this will do you any good because you will simply ignore it, but I post this passage just to expose your ignorance......again:
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this. This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound through muscle.
What sense does it make to cite the observers of the autopsy instead of the ones performing the autopsy? Why do you choose to ignore the unanimous finding of the FPP, including that of Dr. Cyril Wecht, that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat? Do you think you are more knowledgeable of forensic medicine than they were? Do you think you have better information than they did? These are of course rhetorical question that answer themselves. Of course you don't. You are just an amatuer hack pretending you know more than people who are qualified to make these judgements.
I also notice you are still in denial about the fact that JFK's clothing proves concretely that no bullet exited the throat, as I document in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible".
The clothing proves no such thing. That is just a conclusion reached by a know nothing such as yourself. The fibers in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket were pushed inward in the back and pushed outward in the front collar of the shirt. How does that happen if the throat wound was caused by a frontal shot?
You mean you believe he was firing "an FMJ bullet." English 101 again. I recommend you take a grade-school-level online course in basic English so you can learn how to properly use indefinite articles ("a" and "an"), among other things.
I know he was firing FMJ bullets because two FMJ bullets were recovered and they were both matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Another fact you are either unaware of or choose to ignore.
You don't get to decide anything. You're not even qualified to be talking about the JFK case in a public forum.
The funny part is that you think you are.
You don't even know all the important claims that your side has made, much less the evidence that WC skeptics have presented, as you have proven over and over again.
I don't have a side. I am only interested in the truth. That doesn't obligate me to defend every claim ever made by LNs. We have at least one LN on this forum who has posted a whole lot of nonsense which I have refuted countless times.
The list of inexcusable gaffes you have made just in the last four months would fill at least one page, such as your howlers that Wecht agreed with everything the FPP majority said except for the SBT, that the HSCA FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone, that the SBT does not require that the alleged magic bullet nicked JFK's tie knot, that the back wound was above the throat wound, that Olivier's head-shot wound ballistics test proves that FMJ bullets can both shatter into dozens of tiny fragments and break into a number of sizable fragments after striking skull bone, that wound ballistics tests are useless in the JFK case, that trajectory analyses are useless in the JFK case, that moving a wound 4 inches would have no meaningful impact on the trajectory of the bullet that caused it, etc., etc., etc.
Just because you dispute the statements I have made does not make them gaffes. The fact that you dispute them indicates they are most likely correct. I would have to rethink some of my positions if you actually agreed with any of them.
I've answered this argument twice now, but you just keep repeating it. Once again:
(1) We have several credible reports from personnel at the autopsy that two bullets and over 10 bullet fragments were found during the autopsy but were never entered into evidence.
Oh really. Just what is your evidence for that fantastic claim?
(2) If a glass fragment from the windshield shot caused the throat wound, which is an entirely plausible scenario, the fragment would have been easy to miss and would have been hard to see on the x-rays.
OMG. Your nonsense has reached a new low. You don't think a FMJ bullet could make a neat round exit wound in the throat, but you think a glass shard could make a neat round entrance wound. That is dumb and dumber.
(3) We've known for years that the official collection of autopsy x-rays is missing a number of x-rays, including x-rays of the chest and neck. The evidence of this fact is compelling.
You seem to have a vast knowledge of things that simply aren't true. Where do you get these ideas from? The voices in your head?
(4) We've known for years that Humes and Boswell performed illicit surgery on the body before the autopsy began. Two witnesses, including one of the morticians, saw this pre-autopsy surgery. The mortician, Tom Robinson, said that during the surgery at least 10 fragments were removed and placed in a container, and Navy corpsman Dennis David prepared a receipt for four of the larger fragments of those fragments. Yet, the official autopsy record says that only two fragments were removed from the body.
You just keep making shit up. It isn't helping your cause.
(5) Bullets do not always leave a body but sometimes expend their energy and come to a stop in the body. Dr. Perry believed that the throat-wound bullet ranged downward into the chest, as evidenced by the damage that he saw behind and below the wound -- and that damage, BTW, was larger than the throat wound itself, a textbook indication of an entry wound.
So once again you pretend to be an expert in forensic medicine. Every time you do, you make a fool of yourself. The autopsy team originally thought the bullet that entered the back did not exit because they were unaware that a tracheostomy had been performed over the throat wound. They took x-rays of the body and found no bullet which puzzled them until they spoke with Dr. Perry the next morning.
And I notice you said nothing about the presence of an abrasion collar around the throat wound, another good indication that it was an entry wound, even though I noted this fact in the paragraph that you quoted and to which you were supposedly responding.
The throat wound was obliterated by the tracheostomy. There is no evidence of an abrasion collar. Just another one of your many factoids. It's amazing somebody who has studied the JFKA as long as you have could know so little about it.
Topic: JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory (Read 13830 times)