Gary Mack and the about face !

[Michael Walton]

It only happened one way.

The most important eyewitness is dead center, Humes had the appropriate training and wrote a comprehensive and detailed autopsy report that perfectly reflects all the other professional eyewitnesses.

JohnM

To john Myton - explain this please?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms/view

Note the beveled outshoot (circular shape).

[Walt Cakebread]

To john Myton - explain this please?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms/view

Note the beveled outshoot (circular shape).

Michael,  You might as well be debating a doorknob.....    Mytton has the reasoning ability of a doorknob.

[John Agee]

That's my point, Mike. When you compare the witness statements to the autopsy measurements and the drawings created for the commission, it's clear the back wound was moved. But this just isn't true for the head wound. The head wound depicted in CE 388 is high on the back of the head, slightly behind where it is shown in the autopsy photos. This is where the Parkland witnesses on average placed the wound. This leads to a question. If the WC was so brazen as to move the back wound...why didn't they move the head wound? For me, the answer is clear. it's because the WC didn't think they needed to move the head wound. It's not that they wouldn't have, if they'd felt they needed to. The Clark Panel, after all, moved the entrance wound when they realized the WC's trajectory made little sense.

Now, some will try to sell you that because some witnesses thought the large head wound was further back on the skull than shown in the autopsy photos this means they disavowed the photos and that the photos are thereby discredited, but this is a bunch of hooey. The vast majority of witnesses to view the autopsy photos assumed they were authentic, and showed the wounds they saw. Many of those cited as "back of the head" witnesses, in fact, defended the authenticity of the autopsy photos, and assumed they'd been mistaken. In fact, when one looks closely at this issue, and reads all the statements and testimony, one finds that "conspiracy" writers such as (well, you know who they are) have routinely misrepresented the statements of the Parkland (and Bethesda) witnesses to sell their embarrassing belief the large head wound observed at Parkland was a gaping hole low on the back of JFK's head between his ears. I discuss this ad nauseum in chapters 18c and 18d of patspeer.com.

Pat, how many shots were fired, do you have a theory on this? Based on your claims, presentations, etc, I think you need at least 5 shots.

Let's say you are correct on the location of the President's back wound, and let's say you are correct that the single bullet theory is hooey. So the President's entrance "throat" wound would be a separate shot from the front, correct? Good luck showing a trajectory for that frontal shot that works. So we have at least 2 shots so far. Now we have to account for the Governor's wounds. According to your youtube presentation in 2014, the Governor's wounds do not line up for a single bullet. So how many bullets hit the Governor, two? three? And we have the President's head wound; clearly that is a separate bullet. Most witnesses heard 3 shots. Some heard 2 shots. The vast majority heard 2 or 3 shots. Yes, I know, witnesses are mistaken. Seems to me, you need at least 5 shots: 3 shots hit Kennedy (back, throat, head) and at least 2 shots hit the Governor (based on your claim that the Governor's wounds do not line up).

How many shots Pat? five? six?

[Royell Storing]

            The chain of possession of JFK's Body having been broken at some point between AF1 and Bethesda makes the consistent description of his head wound by the Parkland Professionals the only Professional Opinion bearing legal merit. Location = BACK of the Head. Earlier corroboration of the location of this wound is supplied by SA Clint Hill. 

[Bill Chapman]

No, I?m saying that 20+ people at Parkland described a back of the head wound.

LOL. How many of yours did? Newman? Zapruder?

Jackie

[Bill Chapman]

Key phrase to understand = 'rear portion'

Hill said the rear portion of the head
He also said blood and brain matter was all over the rear portion of the car

Take a look at a sample of 'rear portion', kiddies:

https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/photo/the-rear-portion-of-a-rusty-car-high-res-stock-photography/ngs0_6195y

[Richard Smith]

We have no way of knowing if the autopsy X-rays and photographs are genuine. In fact, much work over the years has shown that they do not represent the actual wounds witnessed on November 22, 1963.

The old CT-Catch 22 mantra.  Don't like the evidence? Then suggest it is fake.  Therefore ensuring nothing can ever convince them of a fact they don't like.