Was the HSCA's FPP of the opinion that an unshored exit wound of a missile of comparable size and velocity to that of the single bullet might be similar if the missile were not misshapen by striking a substantial bone within the body?
This is your answer to all the evidence presented in the OP and in subsequent replies? This is it? You're not even accurately describing the HSCA FPP's argument. I think British physiologist Russell Kent does a good job of explaining the fatal flaw in the FPP's shored-wound scenario:
To characterize the neck wound as an exit, and therefore to support the single-bullet theory, the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel needed to account for it being so small. The panel did this by relying on the principle of ‘shored exit’ where clothing tight against the skin at the exit site of a bullet may prevent the usual shattering and tearing that results in a stellate-shaped, irregular wound. It is illustrated in Petty’s book Modern Legal Medicine, Psychiatry, and Forensic Science. The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel report reads that:
"It is of the opinion that such a wound, uniformly regular in shape and small in size, might be anticipated from an intermediate or even high velocity missile if the tissues through which the missile exited were shored, buttressed or otherwise reinforced by clothing."
The problem is that according to Dr. Vincent DiMaio, a world expert on gunshot wounds, shored exit wounds produce "very wide, irregular abrasion collars." This was not evident in the wound seen at Parkland and is not seen in the autopsy photographs. The clincher that the throat wound was not a shored exit, however, is that the slits are not in the collar band (see Figure 21). I accept that the collar band would have been tight against the skin, but the slits are below it in a single layer of cotton not held firmly against the neck. They are at the level of the suprasternal notch (the dip in the middle of the neck between the two collar bones) and were probably not caused by a bullet. This fact alone undoes the single-bullet theory. The hole in the front of JFK’s neck was more likely an entrance wound, and the shirt slits were unrelated to it. (JFK Medical Betrayal: Where the Evidence Lies, 2022, pp. 179-180)If anyone is inclined to suggest that Kent is misquoting Dr. DiMaio's statement that shored exit wounds will have "very wide, irregular abrasion collars," let us read the paragraph in which the statement appears in DiMaio's world-renowned forensic handbook
Gunshot Wounds:
In unusual circumstances, exit wounds will have abraded margins (Figure 4.24). These are called shored exit wounds. They are characterized by a broad, irregular band of abrasion of the skin around the exit. In such wounds the skin is reinforced, or “shored,” by a firm surface at the instant the bullet exits. Thus, individuals shot while lying on the floor, leaning against a wall, or sitting back in a chair may have shored exit wounds. As it exits, the bullet everts the skin, with the everted margin impacting against the wall, floor, or back of a chair, thus being abraded or “rubbed raw.” Shored exit wounds can also occur from tight supportive garments, such as girdles, brassieres, and belts, as well as from tight clothing. Fresh shored wounds have a moist, succulent appearance. The pattern of the material overlying the shored exit may be imprinted on the edges of the wound. Shored wounds have very wide, irregular abrasion collars and when dry may simulate contact wounds. (Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, Second Edition, CRC Press, 1999, pp 94-95)Thus, WC apologists have no way to explain the fact that JFK's throat wound was small (about 5 mm), neat, and punched
inward, textbook traits of an entry wound, and that the damage behind and below the wound was larger than the wound itself, another textbook trait of an entry wound. The shored-wound theory cannot explain the throat wound, and the FPP majority who floated this nonsense surely should have known better.
There is, of course, a logical, straightforward, forensic explanation for the throat wound's appearance and underlying damage: it was an entrance wound, just as the Parkland doctors initially said it was. But you guys can't be logical and follow the science because your theory of the shooting collapses if you admit the throat wound was an entrance wound.
