BD-

People are not guilty until proven innocent. It works the other way around.

You posit Israel "must answer for its involvement" in the JFKA.

Specify that involvement.

Did Mossad work with LHO? Did Mossad put assets on the ground in DP on 11/22? Who? Cite an example.

Was it Mossad who framed LHO with paperwork indicating he bought the M-C rifle? What evidence do you have? Mossad controlled the Dallas Police Dep't? Mossad picked Earl Warren to run the WC and then put Dulles on board?

Did Mossad compel the WC into being? LBJ was only a Tel Aviv lackey? This stretches credulity past the breaking point.

Yes, Mossad worked with James Angleton, CIA'er. So the did the intel agencies of many nations, and even more so, the Vatican.

Angleton liked Israel as a counterweight to Moscow involvement in the Middle East. Israel was more or less a US tool back then, and the Vatican back then was a bulwark against communism, especially in Eastern Europe and Latin America. That hardly implicates the Vatican or Mossad in the JFKA. They were both US-Angleton allies. And solid allies to boot.

OT, but you repeat the rank canard that Mossad was involved in the 9.11 attack on the US. Again, is there the slightest evidence for this?

The 21 skyjackers were Middle East Islamist extremists, with possible links to Saudi Arabia. But you think Mossad was to blame?

The JFKA CT community wonders why it is often considered to be a lot of crackpots.

You might wonder about that.

This is your answer to all the evidence presented in the OP and in subsequent replies? This is it? You're not even accurately describing the HSCA FPP's argument. I think British physiologist Russell Kent does a good job of explaining the fatal flaw in the FPP's shored-wound scenario:

To characterize the neck wound as an exit, and therefore to support the single-bullet theory, the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel needed to account for it being so small. The panel did this by relying on the principle of ‘shored exit’ where clothing tight against the skin at the exit site of a bullet may prevent the usual shattering and tearing that results in a stellate-shaped, irregular wound. It is illustrated in Petty’s book Modern Legal Medicine, Psychiatry, and Forensic Science. The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel report reads that:

"It is of the opinion that such a wound, uniformly regular in shape and small in size, might be anticipated from an intermediate or even high velocity missile if the tissues through which the missile exited were shored, buttressed or otherwise reinforced by clothing."

The problem is that according to Dr. Vincent DiMaio, a world expert on gunshot wounds, shored exit wounds produce "very wide, irregular abrasion collars." This was not evident in the wound seen at Parkland and is not seen in the autopsy photographs. The clincher that the throat wound was not a shored exit, however, is that the slits are not in the collar band (see Figure 21). I accept that the collar band would have been tight against the skin, but the slits are below it in a single layer of cotton not held firmly against the neck. They are at the level of the suprasternal notch (the dip in the middle of the neck between the two collar bones) and were probably not caused by a bullet. This fact alone undoes the single-bullet theory. The hole in the front of JFK’s neck was more likely an entrance wound, and the shirt slits were unrelated to it. (JFK Medical Betrayal: Where the Evidence Lies, 2022, pp. 179-180)

If anyone is inclined to suggest that Kent is misquoting Dr. DiMaio's statement that shored exit wounds will have "very wide, irregular abrasion collars," let us read the paragraph in which the statement appears in DiMaio's world-renowned forensic handbook Gunshot Wounds:

In unusual circumstances, exit wounds will have abraded margins (Figure 4.24). These are called shored exit wounds.  They are characterized by a broad, irregular band of abrasion of the skin around the exit. In such wounds the skin is reinforced, or “shored,” by a firm surface at the instant the bullet exits. Thus, individuals shot while lying on the floor, leaning against a wall, or sitting back in a chair may have shored exit wounds.  As it exits, the bullet everts the skin, with the everted margin impacting against the wall, floor, or back of a chair, thus being abraded or “rubbed raw.”  Shored exit wounds can also occur from tight supportive garments, such as girdles, brassieres, and belts, as well as from tight clothing. Fresh shored wounds have a moist, succulent appearance. The pattern of the material overlying the shored exit may be imprinted on the edges of the wound. Shored wounds have very wide, irregular abrasion collars and when dry may simulate contact wounds. (Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, Second Edition, CRC Press, 1999, pp 94-95)

Thus, WC apologists have no way to explain the fact that JFK's throat wound was small (about 5 mm), neat, and punched inward, textbook traits of an entry wound, and that the damage behind and below the wound was larger than the wound itself, another textbook trait of an entry wound. The shored-wound theory cannot explain the throat wound, and the FPP majority who floated this nonsense surely should have known better.

There is, of course, a logical, straightforward, forensic explanation for the throat wound's appearance and underlying damage: it was an entrance wound, just as the Parkland doctors initially said it was. But you guys can't be logical and follow the science because your theory of the shooting collapses if you admit the throat wound was an entrance wound.

You haven't answered my question. Was the HSCA's FPP of the opinion that an unshored exit wound of a missile of comparable size and velocity to that of the single bullet might be similar if the missile were not misshapen by striking a substantial bone within the body?

"Several panel members are also of the opinion that an unshored exit wound of a missile of comparable size and velocity might be similar if the missile were not misshapen by striking a substantial bone within the body?"

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0053a.htm

 MTG said:

-- William Newman, a combat veteran, said he heard a shot come from behind him on the knoll and that he heard the whiz of the bullet as it passed near him. As someone who heard bullets whiz above him in the Army, I know exactly what Newman was describing."

 Bill Newman did not serve in the military, and certainly wasn't a "Vet"...  Look it up! 

You conjure up some real fantasies, MTG!:

 https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2012/11/10/couple-who-witnessed-jfk-assassination-recall-infamous-day-the-shots-rang-out/

I asked a simple question.  How/why did Biden receive 82 million votes in 2020?  Tens of millions more than anyone in US history including Reagan, Obama, JFK, Clinton.  If that was because Trump was a terrible person, then why did Kamala receive 10 million less votes in 2024 running against him?  Break out of your TDS programming and give us an answer that explains the outlier.  This is like COVID 2.0 trying to convince people that it was just a coincidence that the pandemic just began in the very same city where there was a COVID research lab and then censoring them for questioning that.

Because people voted for him. I have no other answer.
I find it incredible in 2024 that 1/3 of the country didn't vote the top of the ticket in the election of a lifetime.
Weird things can happen. I don't scream fraud.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I feel like I have to ask this; 
Who won the 2020 Presidential Election?

How/why did Biden receive 82 million votes in 2020?

You are obviously implying that millions of votes were somehow created or fraudulently counted.
How does that work? - 82 million is an awfully big number - how many do you suppose are false?

Laugh away - that logic isn't mine 
People vote the way they vote.

There has never been ANY evidence of election fraud in US elections significant enough to change outcome
The percentages range 0.000003% and 0.0025% of all votes cast.  Minuscule.
Our elections have always been secure and trusted until Donald Trump came along.

For a lone nutter you got some kind of crazy conspiracy theories.
But still no comment on the POTUS' dangerous delusion or con game; that he thinks he won an election 6 years ago - huh?
 ....or all those election denying Republicans that win; then take their seat without ever questioning their own result.

Full List of 'Election Deniers' Who Won (2022)
https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-election-deniers-who-won-their-races-1758250

I asked a simple question.  How/why did Biden receive 82 million votes in 2020?  Tens of millions more than anyone in US history including Reagan, Obama, JFK, Clinton.  If that was because Trump was a terrible person, then why did Kamala receive 10 million less votes in 2024 running against him?  Break out of your TDS programming and give us an answer that explains the outlier.  This is like COVID 2.0 trying to convince people that it was just a coincidence that the pandemic just began in the very same city where there was a COVID research lab and then censoring them for questioning that.