Everything MTG presents is either based on opinions of people with zero expertise in the field they are pontificating on, or are outright lies. When he cites Doug Horne to bolster his bogus claim that the final conclusion of the autopsy team was that the bullet that struck JFK in the back did not exit, he does both. The final conclusion of the autopsy team is what they wrote in their report and they all signed. In reaching that conclusion, they developed some ideas during the fact-finding process, some of which turned out to be right and some which turned out to be wrong. The "no exit" observation is a perfect example. Upon initial examination, they could find no exit for the bullet as a probe of the back wound only went a few inches and they were unaware at the start of the autopsy that a tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound in the throat. At that point, somebody uttered the words "There's no exit" or something to that effect. In MTG's world of make believe, that settled the issue. They weren't allowed to move off that initial observation no matter what they learned later. A ridiculous approach for a fact-finding endeavor to follow. Later on, after removing the organs of the chest, they discovered there was a trail of tissue damage leading from the back wound to the tracheostomy wound in the throat. I'll post again their final conclusion on the back wound from their signed report:

"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 right upper 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 bony structures in its path through the body."

I don't know at what point they started to suspect the bullet had exited at the point where the tracheostomy had been performed, but after identifying all the above damage and seeing where it was leading, it would have seemed rather obvious. Humes made several phone calls during the course of the night into the wee hours of the morning, and it would be only natural that he would have confirmed that hypothesis with Dr. Perry. Knowing that they had an entry wound in the back, a trail of tissue damage leading to what had been a bullet hole in the throat, and that there were no bullets in the body, the conclusion of an entrance wound in the back and an exit wound in the throat would be obvious to any person with an ounce common sense. That doesn't include MTG because once somebody said "no exit", it doesn't matter to him what was later discovered.

His citing of Doug Horne is even more comical. Doug Horne had ZERO medical training or experience. He was a military man. The ARRB placed him in charge of all records relating to the military and since the autopsy was performed by military personnel, those records fell under his jurisdiction. He was never expected to offer his own opinions on the medical evidence. He took it upon himself to do that. He embraced David Lifton's absurd Invasion of the Body Snatchers theory that between Andrews Air Force base and Bethesda Naval Hospital, the body had been taken to some facility for postmortem surgery to disguise the true nature of the wounds. That theory is completely laughable. Any postmortem surgery would have been instantly recognizable to a first-year medical student, much less an experienced pathologist. Yet Horne is the ass clown MTG cites to bolster his silly beliefs regarding JFK's wounds. Then he gets huffy when people laugh at his ridiculous beliefs which he has clung to for well over three decades. He seems to be forever stuck in the period following Oliver Stone's 1991 movie when JFK conspiracy theories were running rampant and online discussion groups were first becoming a popular place for people to express their opinions. Sadly, he doesn't seem to have learned anything of consequence since.

Having just picked up his daughter from school, Jack Tatum was driving north on Denver toward the intersection with Tenth.  Author Dale Myers interviewed Tatum in 1983 and again in 1984.  Tatum told Myers that when he got to the stop sign at the intersection, he looked to his right and saw a pickup truck approaching (the truck driven by Domingo Benavides).  He (Tatum) then looked to his left and noticed Tippit's patrol car pulling over to the curb.  Tatum also told Myers that he saw a man walking east (towards Tatum) along the sidewalk.  Tatum turned left onto Tenth.  Benavides was directly behind Tatum in his truck.

Tatum told Myers that as he was beside the stopped patrol car, the man who had been walking on the sidewalk was over at the patrol car on the passenger side.  The man was looking in the passenger-side window and Tippit was facing toward the window to talk to the man.  Tatum said the man had his hands inside the pockets of the jacket.  Tatum continued on Tenth toward the intersection with Patton.

As Tatum was going through the intersection, he heard the gunshots coming from behind him.  Tatum told Myers that when he looked back, he saw that the man had a gun in his hands and Tippit was on the ground.  Tatum stated that the man started to leave the scene but then hesitated and then went around the back of the patrol car toward Tippit, who was on the ground out in the street toward the front of the patrol car.

According to Tatum, the man hurried to Tippit, approached cautiously and then shot him in the head.  The killer then started to leave the scene (trotting toward Tatum's position).  Tatum put his car in gear and took off.  Tatum, after watching the killer turn south onto Patton, stopped his car, backed up, got out and went over to Tippit.

Helen Markham was already there with Tippit by the time Tatum got there.  Tatum noticed the blood and that Tippit was lying "kind of on his side" with his revolver underneath him.  Once the police arrived and were asking for witnesses, Tatum walked Markham over to one of the police officers.

Tatum's story never came out until 1978 when HSCA investigators interviewed him.  Tatum's version (of a final shot separated from the original outburst of shots) is at direct odds with the other eye and ear witnesses.  Benavides was sitting in his truck very close to Tippit's body.  If Oswald began to flee the scene before turning back and going around the back of the patrol car and over to Tippit's body, he (Oswald) would have been heading directly toward Benavides, who made no mention of such an action by the killer:

"Then [after firing the shots from across the hood of the patrol car] I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner." - Domingo Benavides (Warren Commission testimony)

Ted Callaway, on the front porch his office about three-quarters of a block south of the scene, heard the shots.  He stated that he went off the porch of his office and ran over to the sidewalk on Patton and looked up the street toward Tenth.  Callaway got to the sidewalk in time to see Oswald cutting across Patton:

Mr. CALLAWAY. I heard what sounded to me like five pistol shots.
Mr. BALL. Five pistol shots?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Five shots, yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. From the sound, could you tell the source of the sound?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir, I could tell it was back of the lot over toward 10th Street.
Mr. BALL. And what did you do?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I ran out to the sidewalk on Patton.
Mr. BALL. And what did you see?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Well, I could see I was still--before I got to the sidewalk, I could see this taxicab parked down on Patton. I saw the cabdriver beside his cab, and saw a man cutting from one side of the street to the other. That would be the east side of Patton and over to the west side of Patton. And he was running. And he had a gun in his hand, his right hand.

Callaway's office was almost exactly as far from the sidewalk on Patton as was Tippit's stopped patrol car.  Therefore, Callaway (from the porch of his office) and Oswald (from his position at the patrol car) would have almost the exact same distance to cover to get to the sidewalk on Patton.  Point being, if Oswald would have double-backed to fire a final shot into Tippit, then he would have eventually made it to the sidewalk on Patton much later than Callaway, i.e. Callaway would have made it over to the sidewalk much quicker than Oswald since Callaway had no reason to "double-back" after he left his office and ran to the sidewalk.

Also, Callaway described hearing five shots and although gave many interviews, never once described the last shot separated by the original outburst of shots.  This is the same with all of the witnesses who heard shots.  None of them describe one shot happening after the initial volley of shots.

It should be noted here that Tatum, unlike other so-called witnesses who we don't hear from until decades later, did not seek out investigators to tell his story and wasn't seeking "fifteen minutes of fame", so to speak.  HSCA investigators Jack Moriarty and Joe Basteri interviewed Tatum in February of 1978 at his place of employment (Director of Photography, Baylor University Medical Center).  Tatum told investigators that the reason he didn't hang around and give his name to police at the scene was because "there were more than enough people there and I did not see what I could contribute".  HSCA investigators interviewed over three hundred local residents and business owners around Oak Cliff in a search for any new witnesses.  Investigator Moriarty was told of Tatum by a local Oak Cliff business owner who was aware that Tatum had seen the Tippit killing.

Who said KGB? ...and yes, Putin annexed a portion of Ukraine in 2014 and Obama put sanctions on Russia.
meanwhile....

  Trump's campaign manager with Russian connections pleaded guilty to;
One count of conspiracy against the United States, covering a hidden Ukrainian lobbying scheme, financial crimes, and foreign-agent registration violations.
One count of conspiracy to obstruct justice involving witness tampering

Paul Manafort maintained direct contact with individuals tied to Russian intelligence while serving as chairman of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
Key findings from government investigations detail these connections:

Campaign Contacts and Polling Data Konstantin Kilimnik: Manafort repeatedly met and communicated during the 2016 campaign with Kilimnik, a business associate whom the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee and the FBI assessed to have direct ties to Russian intelligence.

Sharing Information: Manafort shared internal, sensitive campaign polling data and strategic updates with Kilimnik while running the Trump campaign, which investigators viewed as a major counterintelligence threat.

Ukraine Discussions: The two met in person in New York and discussed a pro-Russian "peace plan" for eastern Ukraine.

Official Findings Senate Report: A bipartisan U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report concluded that Manafort's high-level interactions with Kilimnik represented a "grave counterintelligence threat" that allowed Russian intelligence services an avenue to acquire confidential campaign information.
 

Zelenskyy does alright developing the latest drone technology and getting real assistance from the EU.
a well deserved nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

So when you claimed that "There was no Ukraine/Russia war under Obama" that was completely false.  And when Obama provided no weapons to Ukraine forcing them to capitulate, there is nothing to see there.  But when Trump provides a multitude of weapons systems to Ukraine that has allowed them to stalemate this conflict, he is an agent of Putin.  Do you understand how bizarre that line of "reasoning" is?  Your mind has been affected by TDS propaganda to believe up is down. 

Another key fact that Humes withheld in his WC and HSCA testimony was that there were multiple drafts of the autopsy report. Humes claimed he burned the “rough first draft” because it had blood on it, but he said there was no substantive difference between the first draft and the final draft. This lie was exposed with the release of the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session, which reveals that Rankin discussed two early drafts of the autopsy report, both of which said the back wound had no exit point.

For a detailed discussion on the drafts of the autopsy report, I would refer interested readers to Doug Horne’s 64-minute video presentation The Evolving JFK Autopsy Report..

As mentioned, the autopsy doctors were careful to conceal the fact that after the chest organs were removed, they were able to probe the back wound to its end point and could see that the wound path did not enter the chest cavity. Their later cover story was that the contracted back muscles prevented them from probing the back wound.

Only Boswell eventually abandoned this story, but he did not do so until his ARRB interview in 1996, when he said that initially the muscles prevented them from probing the back wound but that after they opened the chest, they were able to “get at” it and see that the bullet did not pierce the “lung cavity” but merely caused bleeding “outside the pleura” (the lining of the chest cavity).

In his HSCA interview, Boswell said that he and the other doctors thought the tracheotomy “was a wound.” The interviewer, Andy Purdy, added that Boswell “meant to convey the impression that that the doctors thought it was a bullet wound” (HSCA interview: J. Thornton Boswell, 8/17/77, p. 3).

Later in the interview, Boswell said he remembered “seeing part of the perimeter of a bullet wound in the anterior neck” (p. 8 ).

This brings up the crucial point that the bottom half of a round small bullet hole can be seen fairly easily in the bottom of the throat wound in autopsy photo F1. So, it is not a bit surprising that Boswell spotted this during the autopsy.

But, still later in the interview, perhaps realizing he had said too much, Boswell began to vacillate about knowledge of the throat wound during the autopsy and about when the autopsy doctors concluded that a bullet had fallen out of the back wound (which Boswell usually referred to as a “neck" wound). Toward the very end of the interview, Boswell said that “in the later courses of the autopsy” the doctors thought the tracheotomy “may have included the exit wound of a bullet” (p. 12).

Yet, we know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for a bullet. The second draft said the throat wound was an exit point for a fragment from the head shot. Both drafts said the back wound had no exit point.

In a very revealing comment, Boswell said the doctors got themselves into trouble (“in dutch”) with the Secret Service over the "neck" (back) and throat wounds:

We had gotten ourselves in dutch with the neck and throat wounds with regard to the Secret Service” (p. 4).

For some reason, the interviewer did not ask Boswell to expand on this statement, and Boswell did not volunteer why they were in trouble with the Secret Service agents over the “neck” and throat wounds.

Boswell added that one of the Secret Service agents was “on the phone most of the time” during the autopsy (p. 4).

Boswell noted that during the autopsy, Dr. Robert Karnei “served in effect as the chief assistant of the autopsy doctors” and that Dr. Karnei assisted with the post-autopsy brain exam (pp. 5, 11).

In his ARRB interview, Boswell said the doctors concluded during the autopsy that the throat wound was the exit point for the back wound! He said their first impression of the throat wound was that it was just a tracheostomy but that after they found the back wound and after they opened the chest and saw blood outside the pleura “we had a track” (i.e., they inferred a track, not that they actually saw it):

Q. When you referred to the wound in the anterior neck, what was your first impression as to what that wound was?

A. I'm not sure what our first impression -- oh, we thought that they had done a tracheostomy, and whether or not that was a bullet wound, we weren't sure, initially. It was after we found an entrance wound and then the blood external to the pleura that we had a track, and that proved to be the exit wound; but it was so distorted by the incision, initially we just assumed it to be a tracheostomy.

Q. Did you reach the conclusion that there had been a transit wound through the neck during the course of the autopsy itself?

A. Oh, yes. (ARRB interview: J. Thornton Boswell, 2/26/96, p. 34)

In other words, Boswell claimed that the autopsy doctors deduced/inferred a back-to-throat track during the autopsy based on the bleeding outside the pleura. At no point did he ever claim they actually saw this alleged track. The only way they could have actually seen such a track would have been to dissect the wound, but they did no dissection because an Army general refused to let Finck dissect the wound, as Finck reluctantly admitted under cross-examination at the Clay Shaw trial. 

So we see that on two occasions Boswell contradicted Humes’s tale that they were unaware of the throat wound until the following morning.

A major problem with Boswell’s statements about the back-to-throat conclusion being reached during the autopsy is that they are contradicted by the first two drafts of the autopsy report, by Dr. Karnei’s statements, by Dr. Ebersole’s statements, by med-tech Jenkins’ statements, by FBI agent O’Neill’s statements, by FBI agent Sibert’s statements, and by the Sibert and O’Neill report on the autopsy, not to mention by Humes’s WC and HSCA testimony.

Or present a fake "Ripley's believe it or not" affidavit and if that doesn't work, just say the witness was wrong and you know better.

Oh wait,,, there's another option. Just simply refuse to answer a question and run away in silence.

A fake Ripley's affidavit?  How so?