That might be a good topic...in the right thread.

Because I am (1) diligent and (2) exceedingly bored, I actually watched the 2004 C-SPAN presentation featuring Dr. Aguilar and Max Holland that TG keeps referencing in the context of Aguilar supposedly getting his butt kicked by Holland. It's definitely Inside Baseball sort of stuff, dealing with whether Garrison was a KGB dupe thanks to KGB-influenced articles about Shaw in the Italian Paese Sera magazine (as Holland asserted), but you may find it interesting: https://www.c-span.org/program/american-history-tv/warren-report-the-garrison-investigation/136882.

There was certainly no butt-kicking. The entire discussion was low-key and respectful, and Dr. Aguilar came off very well. The questioners, including Tink Thompson and other luminaries of the era, seemed uniformly skeptical of Holland. I can see why KGB-obsessed TG would like to think Aguilar got his butt kicked, but in fact the prevailing sentiment seems to be that Aguilar "dismantled" Holland's claims. I have no idea why this 22-year-old C-SPAN discussion looms so large in TG's thinking, or why he has such a hard on for Aguilar, but nothing here struck me as worthy of the attention TG has devoted to it on multiple threads here.

Dear FPR,

I didn't mean to imply that Gary Aguilar "got his butt kicked" by Max Holland in that C-Span debate.

https://www.c-span.org/program/american-history-tv/warren-report-the-garrison-investigation/136882

Why did you infer it?

I suggested that members watch it to get an idea of just how snide he is when he's trying to denigrate the CIA and/or Lone Gunman Advocates.

He did seem to gloat quite a bit over catching Richard Helms in a monster fib: Helms' testifying that in March 1967, "Paese Sera" already had a reputation of publishing KGB-written or KGB-approved articles, because in April 1961 it had published an anti-CIA article on the Algerian "General's Plot," when in fact a far-left French newspaper had beaten it to the punch by a day or two.

Wowie zowie.

It's interesting that Dr. Aguilar was dismissive of the fact that Garrison lied (he says he was "inaccurate") in his 1988 book On the Trail of the Assassins when he wrote that he didn't read the anti-CIA/anti-Clay Shaw "Paese Sera" article (or a French newspaper's knock-off version which had been translated into English and sent to him by Joan Mellen's ex-husband in London) until after the 1969 Shaw trial, even though we know from Richard Billings' diary that he read it shortly after he'd arrested Shaw in March of 1967.

Gasp . . . Tink Thompson and other anti-CIA JFKA luminaries of the era seemed to be skeptical of CIA-affiliated Max Holland?

Imagine that!

-- Tom

PS Regarding your beloved KGB (today's SVR and FSB), are you happy that the latter has invited Kash Patel to Moscow?

Are you hoping it will give him some Derkach-like "dirt" on Hunter Biden or [fill in the blank] so that MAGATS can win the midterm elections?

In October of 1964, Frazier acknowledged that the rifle was in the bag when he signed a notarized affidavit stating that his car is the car which transported the weapon that morning.

Still using those fake "affidavits"?

You must really be desperate. 

FWIW, Dr. Aguilar is 78 years old. He has a grand total of 28 posts at the Ed Forum, in two flurries 18 years apart (2007 and 2025). All of his posts are articulate, intelligent and respectful toward those he is addressing, with the possible exception of Fred Litwin (toward whom he is a bit snippy but scarcely rude). One assumes he doesn't participate here because he is elderly, has an actual life, and doesn't think KGB-obsessed crackpots on obscure internet forums are worth his time. This is what I meant by TG's first post answering the question posed by his thread: Does TG sound like someone you would waste your time with if you were a serious JFKA researcher?

In searching old posts here, I see that TG consistently refers to Dr. Aguilar as Gary "Rudeness" (or "Snideness") Aguilar; indeed, in one post he referred to me as exhibiting "Aguilar-like arrogance."  !!! It appears that TG, who seems to be in the grip of some truly weird case of OCD, has poor old Dr. Aguilar among his curious obsessions. In fact, TG started essentially an identical thread in 2025 and got no responses: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4646.msg172179.html#msg172179. See also this: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4930.0.html.

You couldn't make this stuff up; with folks like TG around you don't even have to try.

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."

Another in a long line of your pathetic, bald-faced lies. The final conclusion is in the autopsy report which all three pathologists signed. You get more pathetic with each post you make.

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.

There are no documented facts which refute the fact that Oswald alone killed JFK and in nearly 63 years neither you nor any of the army of hard car JFKA CTs has produced a scrap of evidence he acted on behalf of anyone but himself. Over six decades of futility and you bozos are still at it, accomplishing nothing with your feeble efforts. Oswald was known to be the assassin on day one, has remained so every day since and will remains so permanently and there's nothing you clowns can do about that.

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.

You're delusional. You think because the probe wouldn't pass through the bullet channel that meant it had reached the end of the channel. Only a know-nothing such as yourself would believe such nonsense. Nobody who knows anything about forensic pathology would make such an idiotic claim. Nobody who knows anything about ballistics would think a bullet striking JFK in the back would only penetrate and inch or two. These are just two of the laughable things you have convinced yourself of.

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.

Drafts are not conclusions. I wouldn't expect someone as silly as you to understand that. Humes spoke to Dr. Perry several times during the course of the night, even after the autopsy was completed. It was only then that he wrote the final report which all three prosectors signed.

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

There was nothing to suppress. "No exit" was never a finding. At most, it was an early working hypothesis that was discarded as more information was gathered. If you had your way, they would have quit gathering information in the first half hour and written their report on incomplete information. For some idiotic reason, you want to insist that once someone said there was "no exit" they were stuck with that no matter what they learned later. How stupid would that be?

   

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.

How the hell would they know. The never examined Connally. They never saw CE399. It doesn't get any dumber than that. As for JBC, he knew he had been hit by the second shot and had been led to believe erroneously that JFK had been hit by the first. JBC had no way of knowing if JFK was hit by thee first or second shot because he said he couldn't see him when he turned to look over his right shoulder. If he had, he would have seen JFK was still waving to the spectators on Elm St. after the first shot was fired.

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.

More lies. The back wound was higher than the throat wound and it did go through JFK from back to front. Every member of the FPP agreed with that finding.

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.

Now you are just making shit up. The fibers in the back of JFK's jacket were pushed inward. The fibers in the front of his shirt collar were pushed outward.

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

It has. It's the only explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC that is the least bit plausible. You certainly have never come up with a better one nor have any of fellow CTs done so either. You don't have the guts to put forth your own theory because you know it would be instantly shredded. The SBT remains sound to this day.

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.

If the SBT is so absurd, why hasn't anyone been able to come up with a better explanation in 62 years?

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.

It only proves it to know-nothings such as yourself. One could fill a thick book with the myths you think are facts.

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. 

I doubt you could find your ass with both hands.

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?

The key word in the above paragraph is the one you continue to ignore. That word is "initially". That is not a finding the autopsy team stuck with. They eventually figured out where the bullet went that hit JFK in the back. It exited from his throat.

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.

Your posting were idiotic way back in 1991 when I first started to read them and haven't improved one iota since. If anything, they have only gotten nuttier. You operate on the lunatic fringe of the CT community. I doubt most of you fellow CTs even take you seriously.

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.

You really do get dumber with each succeeding post. The harder you try to save your silly beliefs, the worse it ges for you.

.

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).

Now you go back to making shit up. Humes was never convinced the back wound didn't exit. It's not remotely possible a bullet would have hit JFK in the back and only penetrated an inch or two into soft tissue before stopping. The fact that you think it could have done that shows just how dumb you are. If Jeff Daniels and Jim Carey ever make a sequel to Dumb and Dumber, they should call it Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest and I know the perfect person to play the Dumbest.

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?

The bullet path is described in the autopsy report. I doubt you've ever read it. [/quote]

Please cite a single source that documents that this alleged clear path was supposedly discovered and described. Let's see it. You will make history, because no one has ever claimed that the autopsy doctors observed "a clear path" from the back wound to the throat wound. They could have only seen such a path if they had dissected the throat wound. [/quote]

So I was right. You never have read the autopsy report. The following passage is from the conclusions page at the end of the report, signed by Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck:

"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scap- ular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the rightkpper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can bc ascertained this missile struck no bozy structures in its path through the body."

This was the conclusion reached after all information had been gatherred, including conversations with Dr. Perry. It identifies a clear trail of tissue damage from the back entrance to the throat exit.

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. 

You do love your illogical assumptions.

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?

What the hell difference does it make how they found the contusion to the pleura. They found it and documented it.

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.

Your problem is you know so many things that just ain't so.

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.

That'll be the day I need to be educated by the likes of you.

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.

I love when you project your shortcomings onto others.

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.

That's so idiotic I can't even follow it.

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.

Two more things you know that ain't so.

Umm, yes, we do know this --

Why do you keep saying "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

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 knew a tracheostomy had been performed.

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.)

10:00 or 10:30 was not BEFORE the autopsy began which is what you have claimed.

----------

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.

If you would stop lying, I could ave an hour or more a day refuting your nonsense.

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,

Really, who said that? Why do you invent these strawman arguments?

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.

I'm sure they had figured out from the trail of tissue damage that the bullet had probably exited from JFK's throat but naturally they would want to confirm that with Dr. Perry. I have no idea on which of the several calls between Humes and Perry that they confirmed the tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound.

.

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.

The CTs have been repeating the same nonsense for the entire 35 years I have dealt with them online and probably a lot longer than that.

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

Of course. Let's cite two guys who never conducted an autopsy in their lives.

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."

How the hell would O'Neill know what Humes and Boswell had learned. By eavesdropping, they were picking up bits and pieces of information and reaching silly conclusions. Kind of like what you do almost every day.

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. 

You have no idea what the prosectors were certain of at the end of the autopsy.

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."

This is why it is so dumb to cite people with no medical background who were only picking up bits and pieces of information  during the autopsy. I don't give a rat's ass what Siebert and O'Neill concluded at the end of the autopsy because they had no medical expertise whatsoever and were only getting bits and pieces of information. Why do you ALWAYS turn to the least qualified people available to get your information from?

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)

Oh, he was close to the body. I guess that makes up for a complete lack of medical expertise. If he was as close as he claimed, he was probably a real pain in the ass during the autopsy.

"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.

Jenkins? A STUDENT medical technician? That's one of your experts? <chuckle>

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

I don't have to lie. Of the people you named, none were trained prosectors. Ebersole's only contribution to the process was taking the x-rays at the direction of the autopsy team.

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.

You claim lots of things that aren't so. You claim the autopsy team knew about the throat wound BEFORE the autopsy and later you tell us they found out around "10:00 or 10:30". That's not before the autopsy began.

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

You can't even keep your own BS story straight.

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.

Your claim was the autopsy team knew about the throat wound before the autopsy and now you admit they didn't find out until 10:00 or 10:30. That is not BEFORE the autopsy. That is during the autopsy.

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

You're the guy who thinks 10:00 or 10:30 was before the autopsy. <chuckle>

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.

All SBT believers know the bullet that hit JFK in the back on a downward angle exited from his throat and struck JBC in the right side of his back near his armpit.

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:

Why is it you never QUOTE what the FPP actually said rather than giving us your spin on it?

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.

You don't even understand the concept of proof. Repeating the same BS again and again over the course of several decades is not proof.

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.

Keep repeating the BS. It's all you have.

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.

It's short because it was bent a little more than CE399. BFD. You think for the test to be valid, the test bullet would have to look exactly like CE399.