Wow, amazing. I've presented sourced evidence from doctors, technicians, and federal agents at the autopsy that the no-exit finding was not preliminary but was the final, visually confirmed finding reached toward the end of the autopsy after the pathologists were able to probe to the end of the back wound after they removed the chest organs. Yet, you simply ignore these facts and repeat your fiction that this was a "first impression," "a preliminary hypothesis."

This reply of yours is the most embarrassing example to date of your refusal to acknowledge documented facts that refute your theory. Even when the evidence is clear and strongly corroborated, you won't acknowledge it if it refutes your theory.

You're just making this up because you won't face the fact that the autopsy doctors found the end of the back wound's path and saw that it did not enter the chest cavity. You can't cite a single, solitary source that says this was a "first impression" or a "preliminary hypothesis." James Sibert didn't hear one word from the autopsy doctors that even implied this, much less said it. Nor did Francis O'Neill. Nor did Dr. Robert Karnei. Nor did Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy. Nor did Dr. Boswell's assistant, medical technician James Jenkins.

In addition, we have the fact that we know from the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session that the first two drafts of the autopsy report, which Humes wrote early in the morning after the autopsy, said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. Both of the first two drafts said the back wound had no exit point. And, mind you, Humes wrote these drafts hours after he had talked with Perry during the autopsy, as we know from Dr. Ebersole's HSCA testimony.

The only reason Humes suppressed the no-exit finding was that Oswald was suddenly dead and he knew there would be no trial.

   

LOL! Yeah, uh-huh! Oh, "solid evidence"! Even Humes and Finck told Specter that CE 399 could not have been the bullet that smashed Connally's wrist. Connally himself insisted he and JFK were hit by separate non-fatal bullets.

The WC's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Joseph Dolce, told Specter his theory was total bunk. Specter erroneously assumed the back wound was well above the throat wound and that the bullet transited the neck at a downward angle, a myth that the HSCA FPP refuted.

Specter ignored the hard physical evidence of the rear JFK clothing holes, the front JFK shirt slits, and JFK's tie. Specter's tale was so ridiculous that we now know that even three of the seven WC members rejected it.

Yet, you get on a public board and claim that the SBT has "stood the test of time"!

How ironic that a brainwashed SBT peddler would talk about other ludicrous theories. The SBT is right in the ballpark of absurdity with the flat-Earth theory and the fake-Moon-landings theory. The fringe folks who defend those theories behave a lot like you and your fellow SBT believers behave when it comes to dealing with hard facts that refute your theory.

People who read your replies on the ammo that hit JFK's head are going to see that you have no clue how to explain the compelling scientific evidence that FMJ ammo was not the ammo that hit Kennedy's skull. This fact alone proves that Oswald did not hit JFK's head with any of his alleged shots.

Well, gee, I'm sorry you have trouble following a reply that responds to two people, even though each person is clearly identified in each quotation. 

Do you need to be reminded that Boswell stated that initially they were unable to probe the back wound but that they were later able to probe it after they opened the chest and saw that it did not go into the lung cavity? Do you need to be reminded that not a single person who gave an account of the probing said the doctors had any doubt whatsoever about the no-exit finding? Do you need to be reminded that the no-exit finding came toward the end of the autopsy, after Humes had talked to Perry, and was the final finding on the subject, which is why it was documented in Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy, and which is why it was stated in the first two drafts of the autopsy report, which Humes wrote hours after the autopsy?

I find it hard to believe that you are so uneducated and incompetent that you simply cannot grasp the evidence here, but this is exactly how you are acting.

You know this is false. One, it was not an "impression." It was a visible fact that was observed by everyone around the autopsy table, as Dr. Karnei confirmed. Two, this happened very late in the autopsy, only after the doctors decided to open the chest and remove the chest organs. Sibert and O'Neill emphatically confirmed that at the end of the autopsy, the pathologists had no doubt whatsoever that the back-wound bullet had no exit point. I've quoted some of their statements that prove this. But, you just keep ignoring them and repeating your fictional version of events.

.

Two, the final autopsy report only emerged after Oswald was killed. There was not a shred of "new information" that supported the changed finding regarding the throat wound. By the end of the autopsy, Humes et al were certain that the back wound had no exit point because they had seen with their own eyes the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. The no-exit finding was confirmed by Dr. Ebersole, Dr. Karnei, Jenkins, O'Neill, and Sibert, and by the first two drafts of the autopsy report (as proved by the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session).

What??!! Well, this is historic news!! What "clear bullet path leading from the back entrance to the throat exit"?! Where do you get that?! If they discovered a clear path from the back wound to the throat wound, why did Humes say the throat wound was only "presumably" an exit wound? Huh?

BTW, are you aware that we know from the ARRB materials that the throat wound was probed? Why didn't Humes ever mention this? Obviously, because it would have exposed his lie that he knew nothing about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy. 

LOL! They detected the bruised pleura after they removed the chest organs and were able to probe to the end of the back wound, as I've already documented for you! Sheesh, again, is there just no end to your refusal to acknowledge contrary facts?

LOL! This is the damage that Dr. Perry identified in Dallas! Good gravy, man! Again, you have no business pretending to know anything about the JFK case. You constantly grasp at any item of information that you erroneously believe supports your view, only to find out that you've blundered yet again.

If you want to educate yourself on the damage that Perry identified, I document it in my article "Research Notes on the Shored-Wound Theory to Explain JFK’s Throat Wound,", which I linked earlier in this very thread.

You see, the problem is that you didn't know enough to realize how badly you were blundering in citing that damage as evidence of a back-to-throat wound path.

If you read the descriptions that Dr. Perry and Dr. Kemp gave of that damage, you'll discover that it was below and to the right (viewer's left) of the throat wound, which does not fit with any back-to-throat trajectory from the back wound. If your alleged magic bullet supposedly exited the throat after traveling downward and leftward through the neck, the damage would have been above or parallel with/to the left of the resulting throat wound, not below and to the right of the wound.

And, again, you are once more ignoring the fact that the throat wound was punched inward and was only about 5 mm in diameter. You're also ignoring the fact that we've known for years now that there was no hole through the tie and no nick on either edge of the tie knot, proving that no bullet exited the throat because we have ample photographic evidence that the tie knot was neatly centered in the middle of the collar band and directly over the shirt slits.

Umm, yes, we do know this --

and you know it, but won't admit it. I've documented for you that Manchester and Levine found that the autopsy doctors were aware of the throat wound before the autopsy, and that Dr. Ebersole revealed to the HSCA that Humes was in contact with Dallas and talked about the throat wound with Dallas by no later than 10:30 PM, at least 90 minutes before the autopsy ended. Let me refresh your memory:

----------
Historian William Manchester, in his famous book The Death of a President, based on dozens of interviews with autopsy personnel and with others at the autopsy or in the hospital, acknowledged that the autopsy doctors heard about Dr. Malcolm Perry's comments about the throat wound that Perry made in the Parkland press conference several hours before the autopsy:

They had heard reports of Mac Perry’s medical briefing for the press, and to their dismay they had discovered that all evidence of what was being called an entrance wound in the throat had been removed by Perry’s tracheotomy. . . ." [Manchester, The Death of a President, pp. 432-433)

I should add that on 11/24/1966, Richard Levine of the Baltimore Sun conducted an extensive interview with Dr. J. Thornton Boswell. In Levine's article on the interview published the next day, he noted that, before the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were made aware of JFK's wounds and what the Dallas doctors had done:

The pathologists had already been told the probable extent of the injuries and what had been done by the physicians in Dallas ("Pathologist Who Made Examination Defends Commission's Version," Baltimore Sun, November 25, 1966, p. 3; see also Harold Weisberg, Post Mortem, Skyhorse Publishing, 2007, reprint of 1975 edition, p. 37; Never Again, Skyhorse Publishing, 2007, reprint of 1995 edition, p. 217).

One of the many historic disclosures from the ARRB materials is Dr. Ebersole's statement to the HSCA FPP that by around 10:00 or 10:30, Humes knew about the throat wound from communications with Dallas. Ebersole said he recalled that "by ten or ten thirty . . . communication had been established with Dallas and it was learned" that "there had been a wound . . . in the lower neck" ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/1978, pp. 4-5.)

----------

Why don't you stop lying about this and at least admit that Humes positively knew about the throat wound at least 90 minutes before the autopsy ended? Answer: Because this admission alone would destroy your farcical version of events.

This false talking point is why you keep lying about when Humes learned of the throat wound. The SBT tale says that Humes didn't know the throat wound existed until the following morning,

that he only learned of the wound during his phone call with Dr. Perry that morning, and that he didn't talk with Dr. Perry until after he'd written the first two drafts of the autopsy report. The ARRB disclosures alone destroy this tale.

.

You can repeat this lie until the Sun burns out, as I'm sure you will, but that won't make it come true. Part of me is almost glad that you are oblivious to how bad and unserious you make yourself look by ignoring Dr. Karnei's statements, Dr. Ebersole's statements, med-tech Jenkins' statements, the Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy, and Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB testimony.

This is a good point to discuss Sibert and O'Neill's HSCA interviews, which I haven't yet mentioned.

Sibert said "they probed the wound with a finger and Dr. Finck probed it with a metal probe" and that "the doctors concluded it only went so far" (HSCA interview: James W. Sibert, 8/25/77, p. 3). Sibert added that "nothing was ever mentioned about the anterior neck wound being a possible bullet exit wound" and that "Finck and Humes agreed there was no exit wound of the bullet through the back" (pp. 4, 6).

Furthermore, as part of his HSCA interview, Sibert was asked to do wound diagrams on two face sheets with generic male figures printed on them. On both sheets/both diagrams, Sibert put the back wound about 5 inches below the collar band and clearly below the throat wound, almost exactly where the rear clothing holes place the wound (pp. 8-9).

In O'Neill's HSCA affidavit, O'Neill said, "I do not see how the bullet that entered below the shoulder in the back could have come out the front of the throat" (O'Neill Affidavit for HSCA, 11/8/78, p. 5). He also said this:

"I know for a fact that when the autopsy was complete, there was no doubt in anyone's mind in attendance at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas came out of JFK's body" (p. 3).

Why? Because "Humes and Boswell couldn't locate an outlet for the bullet that entered the back" (p. 3).
And notice that O'Neill said the certainty about the back wound was "when the autopsy was complete."

To put it simply, by the end of the autopsy, the doctors were certain that the bullet that was found on a stretcher in Dallas must have been the bullet that made the shallow back wound. This was after Agent Killion had heard from Dallas about the stretcher bullet, and at least 90 minutes after Humes had learned of the throat wound from Dr. Perry[/i], as Dr. Ebersole revealed to the HSCA. 

O'Neill explained this in more detail in his ARRB interview:

There was not the slightest doubt when we left there that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas was the bullet which worked its way out through external cardiac massage. And the doctor said, since the body had not been turned over in Dallas, “External cardiac massage was conducted on the president, and the bullet worked its way out."

There was not the slightest doubt, not a scintilla of doubt whatsoever, that this is what occurred. . . .

Because I was closer to the President’s body than I am to you, and you’re only about a foot and a half away or two feet away. And viewing them with the surgical probe and with their fingers, there was absolutely no point of exit and they couldn’t go any further. (ARRB interview: Francis O'Neill, 9/12/97, pp. 30-31)

"Bystanders"?! Umm, Dr. Ebersole was the autopsy radiologist. Dr. Karnei was a resident surgeon at Bethesda and helped supervise security for the autopsy before it began, and then watched much of the autopsy from close range. James Jenkins assisted with the autopsy; indeed, he was Boswell's assistant during the autopsy. Sibert and O'Neill were the FBI's official observers at the autopsy; their job was to observe the autopsy and then submit a report on it.

You lie about these witnesses because you know their accounts destroy your farcical version of events.

You know this is false. I've documented for you that historian William Manchester and journalist Richard Levine found that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound before the autopsy. Manchester interviewed dozens of autopsy witnesses and others at the hospital in researching his famous book -- that's when he learned that the autopsy pathologists heard reports about the throat wound before the autopsy. Boswell indicated the same thing to Levine.

But, you just ignore all this and keep falsely pretending there's no evidence the doctors knew about the throat wound before the autopsy.

Let me refresh your memory, yet again:

One of the many historic disclosures from the ARRB materials is Dr. Ebersole's statement to the HSCA FPP that by around 10:00 or 10:30, Humes knew about the throat wound from communications with Dallas. Ebersole said he recalled that "by ten or ten thirty . . . communication had been established with Dallas and it was learned" that "there had been a wound . . . in the lower neck" ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/1978, pp. 4-5.)

The autopsy did not end until after midnight. Even if we assume Humes did not talk with Dallas about the throat wound until 10:30, that would still be at least 90 minutes before the autopsy ended.

Will you ever stop lying about this? You can't, because admitting this would destroy your farcical version of events.

This again?! You don't seem to know that the vast majority of your fellow SBT believers loathe the FPP's version of the SBT because they realize that the back-wound-to-window trajectory is even far more implausible than the WC's trajectory.

As I've explained to you at least three times now, the FPP, to their credit, acknowledged that the back-wound bullet entered and tunneled at an upward angle, but the only way they could make that trajectory line up with the sixth-floor window was to assume that JFK was leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet hit, a fantasy that is undeniably refuted by the photographic evidence. Dr. Wecht discussed this point in his 2021 book The JFK Assassination Dissected: An Analysis by Forensic Pathologist:

When the panelists tried to insinuate that the single-bullet notion was credible because JFK “could have” bent over, I laughed loudly and reminded them the Zapruder film makes clear that the president was not tying his shoelace or scratching his groin at just that right moment. They all knew that, but that’s how desperate they were to justify their absurd claim. . . .

The other eight doctors were unanimous in their conclusion that JFK was shot by two bullets, both which entered from above and behind him -- corroborating the Warren Commission findings. I, of course, could not hop aboard that bandwagon. I wrote a solo dissenting opinion that the single-bullet concept was impossible and included drawings to illustrate my view. (pp. 368, 371)

Furthermore, the only explanation that the FPP majority offered for the throat wound's entry-like appearance was the impossible shored-wound theory. Those guys had to know this was pure bunk, that shored wounds do not produce exit wounds that are small, neat, and punched inward, as Dr. DiMaio noted. (Indeed, I suspect this is one reason that DiMaio changed his mind about the SBT after extensive consultation with physiologist Russell Kent.)

Earlier, in trying to explain the throat wound's appearance, you claimed that FMJ bullets "make the same size hole going out as they do coming in when they don't strike bone." You apparently forgot that both Lattimer and the HSCA FPP majority appealed to the impossible shored-wound theory to explain the throat wound's appearance. You also appear to have forgotten that in the WC's SBT wound ballistics test, the exit wounds were larger than the entry wound.

Even if an FMJ bullet doesn't strike bone when transiting a body, it is not going to produce an exit wound that is small, neat, and punched inward, and that has an abrasion collar.

I think most people will conclude that you are the one who is continuing to try to make your case with lies.

I think most people will also conclude that you are incapable of admitting when you're wrong, no matter how clearly you are proven to be in error. I recall your recent claim that the HSCA FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone, a demonstrably false assertion. You refused to admit you were wrong, even when I proved to you that the FPP's wound diagrams showed no missing frontal bone and showed all the skull fragments as coming from the parietal bone.

I think most people will see the same pattern of refusing to admit obvious error in your continued refusal to admit that the Connally back-wound bullet was not tumbling when it hit and was not tumbling when it transited his chest. You are all alone among WC apologists in claiming that the back wound's width of 1.5 cm means the bullet was tumbling. Every other WC apologist who peddles the tumbling-bullet tale misleadingly uses the wound's post-surgery width of 3.0 cm to support the tale.

Ditto for your amazing claim that the Australian SBT test bullet just has "a little bit more bend in it" than CE 399. You made this pitiful claim even after I provided a link that shows a side-by-side comparison of the test bullet and CE 399. Anyone who looks at that photo (Figure 4in John Hunt's article) can see that the test bullet is far more deformed that CE 399, that the test bullet's lands and grooves are no longer visible in the nose of the bullet, that the test bullet's nose is deformed, that the test bullet has a visible bulge above the ring, and that the test bullet is bent in its middle to such a degree that the bullet is visibly shorter than CE 399, even though the test bullet went through less rib bone than CE 399 allegedly did.

What does that prove? - Trump changed his 2016 platform to soften US help in Ukraine.
I don't know what you're arguing

"Prior to the 2016 Republican convention, the GOP platform favored providing lethal defensive arms to Ukrainian forces fighting Russian-backed separatists. The Trump campaign orchestrated a behind-the-scenes effort to water down this stance to "appropriate assistance".

Watch Aguilar's C-Span debate with Max Holland on whether or not Jim Garrison was influenced by an anti-Clay Shaw/anti-CIA KGB article that was published in a Communist-owned Italian newspaper three days after Garrison arrested Shaw on suspicion of having masterminded a Loeb-and-Leopold-like homosexual thrill-kill assassination of JFK. (In his 1989 book "On the Trail of the Assassins," Garrison lied when he said that he didn't read the article until after the 1969 trial.) If you want to know why I'm so interested in the KGB, you can read my 600-plus free articles at Substack under my banner (pardon the pun), "How the KGB Zombiefied the CIA and the FBI."

Why is EVERYTHING, ALWAYS about the KGB with you? Do you have a specific reason for asking out of the clear blue sky why Aguilar doesn't post here? What does his research have to do with your KGB obsession?

There is a definite jiggle at Z155 that looks very similar to the later jiggles but nothing else prior to that which suggests a gunshot.