The HSCA FPP members were not the first ones to recognize that the back wound was below the throat wound. One of the disclosures in the transcript of the 1/27/1964 WC executive session is that J. Lee Rankin, the Commission's chief counsel, noted the back wound was below the throat wound ("below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front"). Since Rankin could see this, it is not surprising that the HSCA FPP experts were unanimous on this point.

We also learn from the transcript that Rankin recognized that the back wound was "below the shoulder blade" because "we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back."

Yet, we see amateur WC apologists here not only denying the back wound was below the throat wound but also claiming the back wound was actually a neck wound, that the wound was in the lower half of the neck. Anyone can look at the autopsy photo of the back wound and see exactly what Rankin talking about. The wound is clearly not in the neck but is well below the neck.

In addition, Rankin wanted to know "how it [the bullet] could become elevated rather than coming out at a sharp angle that it entered."

Let's read from the transcript:

Mr. Rankin. We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy, didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So that it could turn and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said. They reached in and they could feel where it came, it didn't go any further than that, about part of the finger or something, part of the autopsy, and then they proceeded to reconstruct where they thought
the bullet went, the path of it, and, which is, we have to go into considerable items and try to find out how they could reconstruct that when they first said they couldn't even feel the path beyond the part of a finger.

And then how it could became elevated even so it raised rather than coming out at a sharp angle that it entered, all of that, we have to go into.

This is revealing. Rankin wanted to know how the autopsy doctors ended up concluding that the back-wound bullet exited the throat (1) given that they initially said the back wound was shallow and that the bullet did not strike any bone and did not "go through," (2) given that they then said a fragment created the throat wound, (3) given that the back wound was below the throat wound, and (4) given that the bullet should have come out at the same "sharp angle that it entered."

Rankin and his staffers never did seriously pursue these issues because they ended up being forced to swallow Specter's SBT after they were compelled to acknowledge the Tague wounding.

The back wound was not below the throat wound. That is preposterous. For a bullet to transit JFK's torso from back to front on an upward trajectory, it would have to have been fired from a position below the entrance wound in the back. The autopsy photo of JFK's back wound compared to the profile view of JFK on the autopsy table clearly shows the entrance wound was above the exit wound.

Since you seem to be of the opinion that both the back and throat wound were entrances, please answer four simple questions.

1. Where was the back wound fired from?
2. Where was the throat wound fired from?
3. What happened to the bullet that entered the back?
4. What happened to the bullet that entered the throat?

I'm betting you won't even attempt to answer these questions. You aren't into providing answers. Your whole ballgame is raising asinine, red herring objections to the WCR narrative.
You will never take a clear stand on what you did think happen. You only provide vague suggestions completely devoid of any details.

The HSCA FPP members were not the first ones to recognize that the back wound was below the throat wound. One of the disclosures in the transcript of the 1/27/1964 WC executive session is that J. Lee Rankin, the Commission's chief counsel, noted the back wound was below the throat wound ("below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front"). Since Rankin could see this, it is not surprising that the HSCA FPP experts were unanimous on this point.

We also learn from the transcript that Rankin recognized that the back wound was "below the shoulder blade" because "we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back."

Yet, we see amateur WC apologists here not only denying the back wound was below the throat wound but also claiming the back wound was actually a neck wound, that the wound was in the lower half of the neck. Anyone can look at the autopsy photo of the back wound and see exactly what Rankin talking about. The wound is clearly not in the neck but is well below the neck.

In addition, Rankin wanted to know "how it [the bullet] could become elevated rather than coming out at a sharp angle that it entered."

Let's read from the transcript:

Mr. Rankin. We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy, didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So that it could turn and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said. They reached in and they could feel where it came, it didn't go any further than that, about part of the finger or something, part of the autopsy, and then they proceeded to reconstruct where they thought
the bullet went, the path of it, and, which is, we have to go into considerable items and try to find out how they could reconstruct that when they first said they couldn't even feel the path beyond the part of a finger.

And then how it could became elevated even so it raised rather than coming out at a sharp angle that it entered, all of that, we have to go into.

This is revealing. Rankin wanted to know how the autopsy doctors ended up concluding that the back-wound bullet exited the throat (1) given that they initially said the back wound was shallow and that the bullet did not strike any bone and did not "go through," (2) given that they then said a fragment created the throat wound, (3) given that the back wound was below the throat wound, and (4) given that the bullet should have come out at the same "sharp angle that it entered."

Rankin and his staffers never did seriously pursue these issues because they ended up being forced to swallow Specter's SBT after they were compelled to acknowledge the Tague wounding.

Verily, it appears LHO was the topic of Spy v. Spy antics down in MC.

Keep in mind Silvia Duran was a communist, and inclined to lie on behalf of her sponsors.

LHO also spent four days down in MC, whereabouts largely unknown.

The US Ambassador to Mexico, Thomas Mann, and a US State Dept  Charles William Thomas alarmed superiors in the late 1960s by pressing for a new investigation into LHO 1963 trip to Mexico City, suspecting a possible Cuban or communist conspiracy behind the JFKA.

We know how President LBJ responded to that. No nuke wars are good wars.

Mann was soon in the private sector, and Thomas' career was ruined.

The official record says 23-year-old, 5’ 9.5”, light-brown-haired, gray-or-hazel eyed, 133 pounds-at- autopsy Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico City seven weeks before he assassinated President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas.

Five-foot-three-and-a-half Silvia Duran, the secretary/receptionist at the Cuban Consulate, and Consul Eusebio Azcue collectively described the Oswald they’d dealt with on 27 September 1963 as 35-ish, short, blond-haired, blue-or-green-eyed, slender, and having a very thin face.

This description matches that of KGB Colonel Nikolai Leonov, “Third Secretary and Assistant Cultural Attache” at the Soviet Embassy. As we can see in photos that were taken of him, 5’ 6” or 5’ 7” Leonov was blond-haired, slender, and had a very thin face.

Strangely, whereas Duran said the Oswald that she and Azcue had dealt with was “inelegantly dressed” and was the same man who was shot by Jack Ruby on 24 November 1963, Azcue said he was wearing a “blue Prince of Wales suit” and was not the same person Ruby had shot.

(The passport-sized photos of real-deal Oswald that were taken that day and which were stapled by Duran onto his visa application forms in his presence show him wearing a white shirt, a dark tie, and light-colored sweater vest.)

Background: Leonov had met Fidel Castro’s younger brother, Raul, on a boat in 1953 and had become his and Che Guevara’s mentor. He also funneled arms to rebels in Latin America. When Fidel was arrested in Mexico City in 1956, Leonov’s calling card was found in his wallet.

Upon being refused a transit visa to Russia, Oswald is alleged to have started weeping and brandishing his revolver in front of three “diplomats” at the Soviet Consulate on Saturday, 28 September 1963 — Pavel Yatskov, Oleg Nechiporenko, and the putative head of KGB assassinations and sabotage in the Western Hemisphere, Valery Kostikov.

Kostikov’s name would notoriously be volunteered to a forgetful Oswald or “Oswald” over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-KGB phoneline on 1 October 1963 by the Soviet Embassy’s security officer, Ivan Obyedkov.

Obyedkov (mis-transcribed “Byetkov” in James Angleton’s 19 June 1975 Church Committee testimony) was a Kremlin-loyal triple. In other words, the CIA mistakenly believed it had successfully recruited him.

Interestingly, without mentioning the above incident, Leonov wrote in his 1985 Russian-language book, Difficult Times, and told National Enquirer on 22 November 1993 that Oswald had interrupted volleyball warmups on Sunday, 29 September 1963, and that he and Leonov had retired to his office in the Soviet Embassy (not Consulate) where Oswald proceeded to start weeping and brandishing his revolver (just as Oswald, apparently unbeknownst to Leonov, had done the previous day at the Consulate).

P.S. Author John M. Newman says real-deal Oswald was impersonated over-the-phone several times in Mexico City, as evidenced by the fact that the transcripts show that the caller didn’t know what real-deal Oswald had done (or not done) in the Cuban and Soviet Consulates during his attempts to get Cuban and Russian transit visas.

Oswald and OJ had two things in common. Both murdered two people and neither was ever convicted for it.

That's oh so true. And the evidence in each case proves their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

Vincent Bugliosi; "Absolutely 100% Guilty"; 1999 video:

Fixed 

Thank you for your efforts on this and other matters.