The autopsy pathologists observed a bullet entrance wound on the back of the neck. They noted a contusion on the apex of the right lung, indicating to them that the bullet had passed over the top of that lung. They learned that there was a bullet wound in the throat that had been obliterated by the tracheotomy. X-Rays of the body revealed that no bullets remained inside it.
If the bullet that entered the back of the neck did not exit the throat, what happened to it? If the throat wound was a bullet entrance wound, what happened to that bullet?
As I noted earlier, I could never convince you that the Single Bullet theory should be known as the Single Bullet Fact. If you are unwillingly to address the two questions above, why should I even bother discussing this with you?
How would an explanation, no matter how speculative, of where a bullet went or could have gone prove the SBT?
The autopsy pathologists observed a bullet entrance wound on the back of the neck. They noted a contusion on the apex of the right lung, indicating to them that the bullet had passed over the top of that lung. They learned that there was a bullet wound in the throat that had been obliterated by the tracheotomy. X-Rays of the body revealed that no bullets remained inside it. Which led them to the assumption that the bullet that entered in the back must have exited through the throat. They never verified the assumption.
As I noted earlier, I could never convince you that the Single Bullet theory should be known as the Single Bullet Fact. The problem is that something you believe is not automatically a fact.
A fact can be proven. I have never seen conclusive proof for the SBT.
If you are unwillingly to address the two questions above, why should I even bother discussing this with you?You are not discussing it with me. You are asking questions. If you only wish to "discuss" this topic with people who either agree with you or are willing to accept your opinions at face value, then you perhaps shouldn't bother.
