It was elliptical because it was elliptical??? Is that supposed to be an answer. If ever there was a case of circular logic, this was it.
What in the world? I will charitably assume you must have a reading problem. I pointed out that Dr. Shaw, who operated on the wound, said it was elliptical, and then I quoted him saying it was elliptical. Let me quote him again:
The wound entrance was an elliptical wound. (6 H 95)And, to repeat, he's the guy who operated on the wound. He also explained that he debrided the wound elliptically, around its edges.
You know the wound measured 1.5 x 0.8 cm, right? You know this, right? That's almost identical in size to JFK's rear head entry wound--1.5 x 0.6 cm--yet no one has ever floated the theory that the head-shot bullet was markedly tumbling when it struck.
For newcomers who haven't read the whole thread, I should add that Dr. Shaw also pointed out that Connally's back-wound bullet created a "
small tunneling wound" (7 HSCA 149), and he noted "
the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it" (4 H 116), which debunks the idea that the bullet was markedly tumbling--either when it hit or when it tore through Connally.
BTW, Dr. Shaw was an experienced thoracic surgeon who had operated on over 1,000 gunshot cases, so he had vast experience with bullet wounds. (Ah, but John Corbett says, "That doesn't matter! He wasn't a forensic pathologist!")
I would bet a forensic pathologist would come to a very different conclusion about the elliptical wound.
Then you'd better quit gambling. Let's see:
Dr. Robert Kirschner, a forensic pathologist and one of the ARRB's three forensic experts, said the the SBT was "very dubious."
Dr. William F. Enos, the forensic pathologist who supervised CBS's SBT wound ballistics test, said the SBT was "highly improbable."
Dr. Milton Helpern, one of the foremost forensic pathologists of the 20th century, said the SBT was impossible, that not even an FMJ bullet could do all the damage claimed for it and emerge with its lands and grooves intact and with such a tiny loss of its substance.
Dr. Joseph Nichols, a professor of pathology at the University of Kansas who trained forensic pathologists, who had numerous articles on pathology published in peer-reviewed medical journals, and who was also a court-certified expert witness in forensic pathology, said the SBT was impossible for a number of reasons: the conflicting angles through JFK and Connally, CE 399's virtually undamaged condition; the lack of an unobstructed path from either of the proposed entry sites to JFK's throat wound; among other reasons.
Dr. Vincent DiMaio, one of the leading forensic pathologists of the 20th and 21st century, initially accepted the SBT but later changed his mind after studying the SBT more closely with medical scientist Russell Kent.
In fact the FPP panel did reach a very different conclusion. With one dissent, the panel concluded that the bullet that hit JBC in the back had first passed through JFK's torso.
LOL! Oh, so
NOW you're back to citing the FPP majority! Pure comedy. And this after you just recently claimed that you "don't have to explain" the FPP's finding that the brain photos, if authentic, categorically rule out the EOP site; their finding that the skull x-rays do not show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report; their finding that the only fragment trail on the skull x-rays is the high fragment trail with its cluster of numerous tiny fragments in the right-frontal region; and their finding that JFK's back-wound bullet entered and tunneled at an
upward angle--a fact that they could only explain by bogusly assuming JFK was leaning over 50 degrees forward when the bullet hit!
If you would ever bother to actually read the FPP's report, you would discover that the FPP majority made no effort to explain the fact that the projectile 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. The FPP majority also made no effort to explain how the alleged magic bullet could have nicked the top surface of the tie knot inward from the left edge while making no hole through the tie knot nor through any other part of the tie.
And, as mentioned, the only way the FPP majority could explain the JFK back-wound bullet's upward impact angle and upward tunneling was by making the demonstrably false assumption that Kennedy was leaning forward by over 50 degrees.
We have known for decades now that there was no hole through JFK's tie and that the nick on the knot was not on the edge of the knot. In fact, in an effort to create the false impression that a bullet passed through the tie knot, the FBI made an evidence photo of the knot with the knot twisted in such a way that the nick appeared to be in the middle of the knot. When Harold Weisberg, through years of FOIA suits, finally gained access to high-quality photos of the tie, he discovered there was no hole through the tie, a fact that the HSCA later quietly admitted.
Yet, SBT believers continue to ignore this hard physical evidence and still peddle their debunked theory. You guys are like Flat Earthers who ignore satellite images of the Earth and continue to insist the globe is flat.
JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing
Recent Posts