One, I never cited DiMaio's Gunshot Wounds handbook as evidence that he rejected the lone-assassin theory.I cited it to prove that FMJ ammo could not have produced the bullet fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. To refresh your memory, DiMaio said that if a skull x-ray shows numerous tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo; and that when FMJ bullets do fragment after striking skull bone, they will only leave a few fragments. You still refuse to face these facts.
Not all FMJ bullets are alike. Most homicides committed with FMJ ammo are with handguns which have a much lower velocity. What matters is how Carcano 6.5mm FMJ ammo reacts when striking a skull. I doubt Di Maio ever addressed that point in his textbook.
Two, toward the end of his life, DiMaio told British physiologist Russell Kent, after corresponding extensively with Kent, that he no longer believed in the single-bullet theory.
Tell us what your source for that claim is. A direct quote would be nice, not your typical spin on what somebody else has said.
This is just so much comedy and nonsense. I see that you simply refuse to deal with evidence honestly and credibly.
You don't present evidence, you present your spin. You have no qualifications as a forensic pathologist or a ballistics expert yet you pontificate as if you do. No court in the land would allow you to testify as an expert in either of these fields and as such, your opinions do not constitute evidence.
Even when you're caught in bald-faced error, you won't admit it, and then, amazingly, you repeat your error more emphatically, as if that somehow makes it correct, such as your fiction that Connally's back wound was elongated.
Even using your figures of a wound 1.5cm by 0.8cm, that is an elongated wound. If it were a round entry, it would have a single diameter.
I literally burst out laughing when I read your argument that JFK's rear head entry wound was not elongated because his head was tilted forward but that Connally's back wound was elongated because he was sitting upright. Holy cow. Never mind that both wounds were 1.5 cm wide! Yeah, just ignore that fact!
Aside form the fact your reading comprehension on this point is amazingly poor, the fact you reject the point I made makes it more credible. I would have to rethink my position if you ever agreed with me on anything.
Every other SBT defender who has claimed Connally's back wound was elongated has done so by citing the wound's post-surgery width of 3.0 cm. Why? Because they've recognized that a wound that is only 1.5 cm wide is hardly an "elongated" wound and could not have been caused by a tumbling or severely yawing bullet. But, here you are making this silly argument, an argument that every one of your fellow SBT defenders has known better than to make.
It doesn't matter how elongated the wound was, the fact is it was elongated. A stable bullet is not going to make an elongated entrance wound unless it has a tangential angle of entry. That would not have been the case with JBC's back wound. It is elongated because the bullet yawed.
I guess you didn't know that the official version, which you supposedly accept, says the head-shot bullet hit the head virtually straight on in its horizontal angle. Have you not seen the WC's and the HSCA FPP's wound diagrams of the rear head entry wound? Apparently you're unaware that your side, in order to explain the right-parietal exit wound, has claimed that the head-shot bullet magically veered to the right and upward after it entered at the EOP site.
I don't have a side. I am only interested in the truth.
An even bigger howler is your argument that the narrow wound track through Connally's chest "is an indication the bullet was tumbling through JBC's torso." Umm, no, it is not. It indicates the exact opposite. If the bullet had been tumbling through the chest, the wound track would not have been narrow. How on Earth can you not understand this? I mean, do you have a lick of common sense when it comes to the JFK case? Do you have any clue how silly you look here?
You can't admit that the Connally chest-wound bullet was not tumbling when it hit and did not tumble through the chest because admitting this would debunk the SBT, so you resort to abject nonsense instead.
Rather than the two of us continuing to put our lack of expertise about wound ballistics on full display, suffice it to say that the flattening at the base of the bullet is prima facie evidence that the bullet was yawing when it struck JBC's wrist. Had it been a stable bullet, it would have struck the wrist nose first and the flattening would be on the nose of the bullet, not the base. It's also unlikely the bullet would have deposited lead flakes into JBC's wrist because the lead was only exposed at the base.
For those who may be new to this subject, the tumbling-bullet myth is an attempt to explain the fact that CE 399, the alleged magic bullet in the single-bullet theory (SBT), is slightly deformed in a way that proves that whatever it hit, it hit while traveling sideways. So the SBT fundamentally requires that when the bullet hit Connally's back, it hit while flying sideways -- not just markedly yawing, but sideways, because the deformation could have only occurred by hitting an object sideways.
It almost seems like you are finally catching on. The flattening on one side of the base is an indication the bullet struck a hard object, probably the wrist bone, while traveling sideways. We can safely say the bullet did not smash nose first into his wrist because that would have flattened the nose of the bullet. The bullet had to be yawing when it struck the wrist bone.
Comically, you again resort to appealing to the FPP's conclusion that the back-wound bullet exited the throat! Oh, so you're back to this line, huh?! Did you forget that the FPP also said the back wound was nearly 2 inches lower than where Humes and the WC placed it, that the back wound was actually slightly below the throat wound, and that the bullet that hit the back struck at an upward angle? Did you forget all that?
Since I wasn't at the autopsy nor was I present when the autopsy evidence was presented to the FPP, I'm not going to quibble about which of them correctly placed the wound. It is enough to know that the bullet that entered his back exited from his throat. That is the only explanation that makes the least bit of sense. A bullet exiting JFK's throat on a downward angle would have been heading directly toward the right side of JBC's back given that he was sitting approcimately half a body width inboard from JFK. It could hardly have missed him.
Did you forget that the only explanation the FPP offered for the throat wound's entry-like appearance was the impossible shored-wound theory, and that the only way that Baden could explain the bullet's upward trajectory was to assume that JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet struck? Did you forget all that? Surely you didn't think I would forget all that, did you? Don't you get tired of being proven to be so incompetent, inaccurate, and contradictory all the time?
I don't have the expertise to judge whether JFK's collar and tie contributed to the neat round exit wound or if the fact it was an FMJ bullet is enough to explain that. Since neither the original autopsy team nor the FPP saw the wound as it appeared before the tracheostomy, they were left to speculate regarding its appearance. That doesn't change the fact they were able to determine, without dissent, that the bullet that entered his back exited from his throat. We can accept that finding or we can go with your goofball interpretation of the medical evidence. That's not a difficult choice at all.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how your magic bullet could have exited the throat without tearing a hole through the tie knot or without at least nicking the right or left edge of the knot. You keep dodging the fact that we have ample photographic evidence that JFK's tie knot was neatly centered in the middle of his collar band. Any bullet exiting the throat/shirt slits would have had to tear through the tie knot or at least nick its left edge. For years the FBI created the false impression with a manipulated evidence photo that there was a hole in the middle of the tie knot, but we now know there was no hole through the knot and no nick on either edge of the knot.
I don't know what your source is for your claim that there was no nick in the know of the tie and you are the only one I've ever seen make that claim, but whether that is true of not, it in no way invalidates the SBT. The bullet did pass through his shirt collar. Those fibers were pushed outward while the fibers in the back of his shirt and jacket were pushed inward. It doesn't require Sherlock Holmes to figure out what that means.
.
Incredibly, you claim that the first two drafts of the autopsy report are "not important," and that what really matters is "their final conclusion"!
Of course it doesn't matter. During a fact finding process, hypotheses are developed and compared to the available evidence to determine their validity. As further evidence is gathered, early hypotheses can be validated or discarded depending on what is found.
In creating the electric light bulb, Edison failed over 1000 times. He said those weren't failures. He said with each of them, he discovered something that didn't work. I doubt the autopsy team discovered over 1000 things that didn't work, but no doubt that had several before they reached the correct answer.
To support this odd argument, you repeat the long-debunked myth that Humes didn't talk with Perry until the following morning, when we have known for years that Humes was in contact with Perry well before the autopsy ended. I documented this fact earlier in this thread, and I have documented it in greater detail in other recent threads, but you continue to ignore it.
Humes talked to Perry several times, some that night and some the next morning. Why do you find that odd?
I'm trying to fathom the thought process behind the unserious, vacuous claim that the first two drafts of the autopsy report are "not important," especially given how contradictory they were, given that we've known for years that Humes knew about the throat wound long before the autopsy ended, and given the disclosures about the back-wound probing.
I gave uo trying to understand your thought process a long time ago. It has never made any sense.
As for your claim that the Australian SBT test bullet and CE 399 have virtually the same amount of deformation, people are going to see what a total clown you are when they look at the test bullet and CE 399. CE 399 is clearly far less deformed than the test bullet. I'm guessing you're just hoping that most readers won't bother to look at the side-by-side comparison of the two bullets, or else you're legally blind. Here's the link again:
I said the Australian test bullet and CE399 had similar damage. If you want to interpret that to mean the same, that's on you. What their experiment showed is a bullet could pass through layers of flesh and bone and emerge largely intact and without a deformed nose. That negates the argument that the single bullet couldn't have caused all those wounds and ended up like CE399.
"Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory" (See Figure 4.)
It says volumes about your honesty and credibility that you would claim that the only difference between CE 399 and the Australian test bullet is that the test bullet has "a little bit more bend in it." Oh! A "little bit more bend," huh?! What do you suppose people will think of you when they look at Figure 4 in Hunt's article and see the obvious difference between the two bullets? It seems you will tell any lie and dismiss any fact rather than just admit the SBT is fiction.
in typical CT fashion, Hunt displays CE399 from the perspective that hides the deformation of the bullet. Rotating the bullet a half turn would reveal the true extent of the damage, including the bend and the flattening of the base. Contrary to what CTs have long claimed, CE399 was far from pristine and it's damage is obvious when looked at from the proper angle.
In response to my quoting of Frazier on CE 399's "slight" deformity and virtually zero loss of substance, you falsely label this "a strawman argument" because "nobody has said the bullet lost a lot of its material." You completely avoided Frazier's comments about the minimal amount of deformity to CE 399, including the fact that its lands and grooves were intact and that the deformation is barely visible unless you view the bullet from the base.
What an idiotic argument. Of course you have to view CE399 from the correct perspective to see the true extend of the damage. The damage is there. Yes, the damage can be hidden if the bullet is photographed from the opposite side. So what?
You just whiffed on all that and focused on his remark about the loss of substance with the inane argument that "nobody has said the bullet lost a lot of its material." Can you read? I didn't say that anyone had ever said the bullet lost "a lot of its substance." The argument has always been that the bullet should have lost a lot of its substance if it did all the damage claimed for it.
That's a real dumbass supposition.
The fragments in Connally's wrist were not "flakes." Good grief, even Humes and Finck noted this to the WC in explaining why they did not think CE 399 could have caused Connally's wrist wound. How can you not know this? The "flakes" myth was buried for good in the 1990s with the ARRB disclosures. Nurse Bell, who assisted with the wrist surgery, handled the fragments from the wrist -- she noted they were definitely not flakes. But of course you know nothing about any of this because you won't read anything that disagrees with you.
The flakes were described as having the weight of a postage stamp. Why are Humes and Finck's comments about Connally's wrist wound the least bit relevant. They looked at JFK's body. They never saw Connally. It's pretty moronic to even mention them in a discussion about JBC's wrist wound.
In reply to my point that Dr. Shaw noted that the bullet that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited zero fibers, even though it had supposedly torn through four layers of JFK's clothing and two layers of Connally's clothing, you said,
Huh? Just Huh? How does this address the point that the bullet that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wrist wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited no fibers in the back wound? Huh? How does that work, especially if we assume the bullet was tumbling when it hit?! Sheesh, is there no end to your silliness.
I'm trying to understand what your point was, which isn't an easy task. What is it you are trying to claim by pointing out there were no fibers in JBC's back wound. Are you trying to suggest that the bullet that entered his back hadn't gone through his jacket and shirt first. Why did you even bring that up?
If the Connally back-wound bullet only tore through two layers of clothing, i.e., Connally's coat and shirt, one could understand why the bullet did not deposit fibers in the back wound; but if the bullet tore through six layers of clothing before hitting the back, surely it would have deposited some fibers in the wound, given that fibers were deposited in the wrist wound
Now you are pretending to be an expert on fiber evidence. Is there no end to the fields you will pontificate on in which you have zero expertise? You seem to just pull things out of your ass because they sound good to you. Maybe you should run them by a fifth grader first to find out if they actually make sense.
I notice you dismissed the 1967 CBS SBT wound ballistics test and Lattimer's SBT wound ballistics test, both of which failed to support the SBT, with the lame, evasive argument that they did not "duplicate" the shooting of JFK. One, Lattimer's test actually did duplicate every part of the SBT's alleged journey, but the resulting bullets were badly damaged. Two, the CBS test, as you surely already knew, was not designed to duplicate every part of CE 399's supposed journey but only part of its alleged journey through Connally's chest and then through his wrist and into his thigh -- yet, even then, not one of the test bullets managed to penetrate the simulated thigh, and many of them failed to leave the wrist at all. But you just dishonestly dismiss these facts with another one of your lame evasions.
You continue to operate under the ridiculous premise that a shooting can be perfectly replicated. You could take just about any shooting and try to replicate it 1000 times without reproducing exactly the same result. It is a moronic argument the CTs have floated for years when they claim Oswald's shooting has never been duplicated. Of course it hasn't. That would be impossible. A result only has to happen one time to be possible. It is ludicrous to demand it be duplicated.
Finally, I come to your repetition of your bogus argument that Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony "explains" the disclosures about the back-wound probing, the early versions of the autopsy report, and the Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy. You must be kidding.
I realize this is an inconvenient truth for your silly beliefs.
You simply ignored my point that the disclosures prove that Finck was indeed able to find the end of the wound, not to mention that it was at that point that Finck himself announced for all to hear that the back wound had no exit point. You just ignored all that and repeated your previous nonsense that Finck "explained all that" in his Shaw trial testimony. No, he did not. He did no such thing. He falsely claimed he could not probe the wound path because of the "contraction of muscles." The ARRB disclosures alone prove this was not true. Go read Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB interviews, for starters.
I again ask you, why do you suppose Finck failed to mention that they removed the chest organs and then manipulated the body in order to complete the probing? Why do you suppose he failed to mention that he himself declared right after the probing that the back wound had no exit point? Why did not a single autopsy witness recall Finck expressing any doubt whatsoever about his no-exit declaration? (Answer: Because he had no doubt about it, since he could see the same thing that the other man around the autopsy table could see, as we now know.)
Seriously? You need this explained to you? Again? The muscle groups in JFK's back were in a different position when he was shot than when he was laying on the autopsy table. Add to that the effects of rigor mortis and it is not at all surprising that the probe would not pass through the bullet channel. Finck understood that and he explained that in his trial testimony. Apparently, that explanation sailed way over your head.
You complained that I didn't "quote him [Finck] nor cite a source" regarding Finck's "this wound has no exit" statement during the autopsy. Given that I have quoted Finck and provided documentation for the quote in many other replies on the subject in this forum, your complaint is both misleading and pointless.
Whether Finck said that or not is irrelevant. It was not his final conclusion nor that of the final autopsy report. It was not the conclusion of the FPP which unanimously concurred with the finding that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat. What reason would I have to care what a dumbass thinks about that conclusion?
If you had read the ARRB materials, which have been available for over 20 years now, you would have already known about Finck's statement and the nature and results of the back-wound probing. Sheesh, med-tech Jenkins disclosed this in the late 1970s in a recorded interview, and the ARRB-era disclosures confirmed his account. Yet, this is all still news to you in 2026. Pathetic.
What is pathetic is your continued practice of always citing the least qualified people available and ignoring the people who have actual know-how. Jenkins was a STUDENT technician when he assisted in the autopsy of JFK. And of course you find his impressions compelling while ignoring the findings of the autopsy team and the entire FPP.
That's comical but expected.
You see, the main problem here, in addition to your woeful lack of research, is that you can't bring yourself to be honest about this crucial issue because you know that if you admit the back wound had no exit point, your entire theory of the shooting collapses. So, rather than judge your theory by the facts, you dismiss the facts because they refute your theory.
I can't dumb his down enough for you to understand. Every qualified person who has seen the medical evidence has concurred with the finding that the bullet tha entered JFK's back exited from his throat. Your dumbass, amateurish analysis of the evidence does nothing to invalidate that finding.
Recent Posts