Autopsy proves SBT impossible

[Tim Nickerson]

Base of the neck? Who are you, Gerald Ford?  It's not smart to regurgitate one of the most disparaged acts of the entire assassination cover-up. Mr. Ford didn't think the wound that is clearly in the back comported with an exit wound in the throat. So he moved it! He was correct since a shot originating from the 6th floor of the TSBD traveling at a downward trajectory would likely exit considerably lower than the throat. I can't believe we're still explaining this after all these years. How about a little intellectual honesty? For the record, my only interest is the truth and I resent individuals distorting history in order to assuage their own biases...

Gerald Ford never moved the the entry wound by even as much as a mm in any direction. All that he did was recommend that the wording in the draft report be changed in order that it would more accurately reflect the wording contained in the autopsy report. The autopsy report has the bullet traversing downward through the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck.

[Ray Mitcham]

It was an official autopsy. That the findings of it don't match up with your conspiratorial beliefs is your problem, not mine.

It may well have been an official autopsy but even you can't deny that it was a"flawed" autopsy. for example.

Finck (If ever a guy was well named, he was

"Q: But you did take orders and did not dissect the throat area?
Finck: Well, these are not direct orders, these are suggestions and directions. I was not told, "I give you a direct order" or that sort of thing.
[/quote]

The bullet never hit the top of the right lung. It passed over the top of the right lung. It did so in a downward direction.

Explain how a bullet travelling in a downward direction, just above the top of the right lung, could exit the throat.

[Matt Grantham]

Matt, did you read the two posts that my posts were in response to? If so, what do you make of the content and tone of both?  I'm not saying that the conclusion of the autopsy is reason to cut off any discussion of the details. I am more than willing to discuss every aspect of the case. But surely you have to concede that the autopsy report does have standing and cannot be easily dismissed. For the record, I never rely on the autopsy report alone when discussing the medical aspects of the case. There are the autopsy photos and x-rays, the Zapruder film, the numerous testimonies of the Bethesda Pathologists, and other sources that are available for consideration.

 Tim yes your tone has been very reasonable and I appreciate it I did quote your one particular comment several posts back that seemed to suggest you were using this fallacy, but maybe I just cannot not understand it in the way you intended Either way, I am not interested in contesting some past quote to death, if you say your open discussion to every aspect, lets leave it at that.

As far as needing to admit the autopsy has standing? Yes kind of I would agree that everything needs to be considered but in the light that those leading the autopsy were strangely inexperienced and the indication of military control is a concern Your point however is spot on since if I were to dismiss all of the autopsy information I would be basically guilty That does not mean, for me at least, the entire autopsy cannot be swept away as all fake and part of a conspiracy I would then be guilty of the very logical fallacy I have already cited. for what is worth I do not see logic as some absolute guidepost. It comes to most people naturally without having to read and quote them Onward we go

[Bernd Werner]

What two bullets?

The two bullets that must have been in Kennedy's throat, if the bullet, that caused the wound in Kennedys back, did not exit his body. If this bullet didn't pass through Kennedys body, the wound in Kennedys throat must have been caused by another bullet entering his throat. Therefore two bullet should have been found or must have been removed, if no bullet was found there.

Explain how a bullet travelling in a downward direction, just above the top of the right lung, could exit the throat.

Where do you get the idea from, that the bullet "travelled just above the top of the right lung"?

[Tim Nickerson]

Explain how a bullet travelling in a downward direction, just above the top of the right lung, could exit the throat.

It's not explainable using that image.

[Tim Nickerson]

Tim yes your tone has been very reasonable and I appreciate it I did quote your one particular comment several posts back that seemed to suggest you were using this fallacy, but maybe I just cannot not understand it in the way you intended Either way, I am not interested in contesting some past quote to death, if you say your open discussion to every aspect, lets leave it at that.

As far as needing to admit the autopsy has standing? Yes kind of I would agree that everything needs to be considered but in the light that those leading the autopsy were strangely inexperienced and the indication of military control is a concern Your point however is spot on since if I were to dismiss all of the autopsy information I would be basically guilty That does not mean, for me at least, the entire autopsy cannot be swept away as all fake and part of a conspiracy I would then be guilty of the very logical fallacy I have already cited. for what is worth I do not see logic as some absolute guidepost. It comes to most people naturally without having to read and quote them Onward we go

Matt, we can agree that the autopsy report is not beyond discussion. I sensed from the testimony of one of the Pathologists that he was not particularly bothered by people questioning the report.  This was decades later. He did stick to his guns though and deferred to the autopsy photos and x-rays when challenged on certain details.

[Ray Mitcham]

It's not explainable using that image.

Take a look at the following:

Tim, perhaps you would mark on the photo above, the line you believe the bullet took.