And yet:

You choose to ignore 80% of the witnesses who reported a 3 shot pattern ie. those who put the last two closer together. And that 80% is corroborated by 100% of the witnesses who observed JFK’s reaction to the first shot and 100% of the witnesses whose evidence allows us to place the location of JFK at the time of the first shot ie. the time conflicts with an early first shot (before z186).

What is there to corroborate those witnesses? Oh, yeah. Other witnesses.

You forgot the last part of your mantra: “unless it agrees with what I think happened, in which case the witness is reliable and accurate”.

There is ample evidence that is far more reliable than divergent eye and earwitness accounts, starting with the best evidence of all, Zapruder's camera. Witness accounts are not without evidentiary value but given their inherent unreliability, they must be weighed against more reliable forms of evidence to determine their value.

"A theory whose 'evidence' consists mostly of eyewitness' and earwitness' statements about something that happened quicky, that was loud, that was startling, that was traumatic, and that happened in an echo chamber like Dealey Plaza ain't worth the paper it's written on." -- Thomas Graves

You forgot the last part of your mantra: “unless it agrees with what I think happened, in which case the witness is reliable and accurate”.

Time for more follow-up. (Yes, I've seen the recent replies by Corbett and Nessan. I think most people will realize that their replies fail to explain the evidence, actually avoid most of the evidence, and are simply not worth answering. If anyone has any questions about their arguments, please let me know.)

By the time Humes got in front of the Warren Commission (WC), he had honed his cover story. He knew he did not dare admit they had been able to probe the back wound to its end point after they opened the chest and removed the chest organs. He knew he could not admit he knew about the throat wound well before the end of the autopsy (much less before it began).

The cover story was essentially this: They were unable to probe the back wound. When they heard about the stretcher bullet found at Parkland Hospital, they entertained the possibility that the bullet had worked its way out of the back wound, but they never formed a firm conclusion about this. They knew nothing about the throat wound until the following day. Humes explained in his HSCA testimony that they learned about the throat wound by no earlier than noon the next day (more on this later). 

Let's read from Humes's WC testimony:

Commander HUMES. Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful without fear of making a false passage.

Mr. SPECTER. What do you mean by that, Doctor?

Commander HUMES. Well, the defect in the fascia [connective tissue] was quite similar, which is the first firm tissue over the muscle beneath the skin, was quite similar to this. We were unable, however, to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point. . . .

Mr. SPECTER. Now, Doctor Humes, at one point in your examination of the President, did you make an effort to probe the point of entry with your finger?

Commander HUMES. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. SPECTER. And at or about that time when you were trying to ascertain, as you previously testified, whether there was any missile in the body of the President, did someone from the Secret Service call your attention to the fact that a bullet had been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital?

Commander HUMES. Yes, sir; they did.

Mr. SPECTER. And in that posture of your examination, having just learned of the presence of a bullet on a stretcher, did that call to your mind any tentative explanatory theory of the point of entry or exit of the bullet which you have described as entering at Point “C” on Exhibit 385?

Commander HUMES. Yes, sir. We were able to ascertain with absolute certainty that the bullet had passed by the apical portion of the right lung producing the injury which we mentioned. (2 H 361, 367)

Let's pause for a second. Humes was blowing smoke here, pretending that this damage suggested a path between the back wound and the throat wound, when in fact this damage was below the throat wound, not above it. The "apical portion of the right lung" is the medical term for the very top part of the right lung. This damage would have been plainly visible once they opened the chest and removed the chest organs, which included the lungs.

Dr. Perry noted damage in this same area in Dallas, without the benefit of having the lungs removed. He detected damage in the "right superior mediastinum," i.e., the very top of the righthand side of the chest compartment, which includes the apical part of the right lung. The apical segment of the right lung is exactly in this area in the chest compartment and is right next to the trachea.

Dr. Perry also saw damage to the right-side strap muscles in the front part of the neck and to the trachea itself, which, along with the hematoma at the top-right part of the chest cavity, logically led him to conclude that the bullet had ranged downward into the chest after entering the throat, since much of the damage was below the throat wound (the rest was parallel to it).

For more information on the damage that Dr. Perry identified on, behind, and under the throat wound, see my article "Research Notes on the Shored-Wound Theory to Explain JFK’s Throat Wound,", which I've linked twice already in this thread.

Let's continue with Humes's cover story to the WC:

I did not at that point have the information from Doctor Perry about the wound in the anterior neck, and while that was a possible explanation for the point of exit, we also had to consider the possibility that the missile in some rather inexplicable fashion had been stopped in its path through the President’s body and, in fact, then had fallen from the body onto the stretcher.

Mr. SPECTER. And what theory did you think possible, at that juncture, to explain the passing of the bullet back out the point of entry; or had you been provided with the fact that external heart massage had been performed on the President?

Commander HUMES. Yes, sir; we had, and we considered the possibility that some of the physical maneuvering performed by the doctors might have in some way caused this event to take place. (2 H 367)

Now, notice Humes said nothing about the removal of the chest organs to facilitate the probing, and nothing about the fact that with the chest organs removed they were able to probe the back wound to its end point and could see that it did not penetrate into the lining of the chest cavity. These were two key facts that Humes and the WC had to conceal at all costs. That's why the Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy was suppressed. 

In his HSCA testimony, Humes went into more detail about when he supposedly first learned about the throat wound and about when he wrote the final version of the autopsy report:

Dr. HUMES. Having completed the examination and remaining to assist the morticians in the preparation of the body, we did not leave the autopsy room until 5:30 or 6 in the morning. . . .
 
Dr. BOSWELL. Saturday morning we got together and we called Dallas.

Dr. HUMES. We called Dallas. See we were at a loss because we hadn't appreciated the exit wound in the neck. . . .

Dr. BADEN: Now this was the day after?

Dr. HUMES. The day after, within 6 or 8 hours of having completed the examination assisting Waller's and so forth for the preparation of the President's remains. We got together and discussed our problem. We said we've got to talk to the people in Dallas. . . .

So I called Dr. Perry. Took me a little while to reach him. We had a very nice conversation on the phone in which he described a missile wound what he interpreted as a missile wound in the midline of the neck through which he had created a very quick emergency as you can see from the photographs tracheotomy incision, in effect destroying its value to us and obscuring it very gorgeously for us. Well, of course, the minute he said that to me, lights went on and we said, ah, we have some place for our missile to have gone. (Humes-Boswell Testimony Before HSCA Medical Panel, 9/16/77, pp. 256-257)

Obviously, the last statement refutes any notion that during the autopsy the pathologists saw a path from the back wound to the throat wound. Notice that Humes claimed that as of Saturday morning, they still could not figure out where the back-wound bullet had gone.

Mind you, since Humes said he didn't leave the autopsy room until 5:30 or 6:00 that morning, "6 or 8 hours" after that means he didn't meet with Boswell and Finck and call Perry until noon on Saturday, at the earliest.

Obviously, we're dealing with some fiction here, but it's worth noting the timeline that Humes put forward.

Also, I should note that Humes's conversation with Perry was anything but "very nice." Perry told Nurse Audrey Bell and three journalists that he received several calls from Bethesda during the night, and that they argued with him about the throat wound and tried to persuade him to change his mind about it. Also, thanks to Dr. Ebersole, we know that Humes first spoke with Perry during the autopsy at 10:00 or 10:30, and that that was when he learned about the throat wound.

Keep in mind, too, that Boswell initially told his HSCA interviewer that during the autopsy, the autopsy doctors thought the throat wound was a bullet wound, and that he could see the bottom half of the bullet wound in the throat. The fact that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy was confirmed by Dr. Ebersole.

Let's continue: 

And then, of course, I asked him, much to my amazement, had he or any other physician in attendance upon the President examined the back of the patient, his neck or his shoulder? They said no, the patient had never been moved from his back while they were administering to him.

So the confusion that existed from some of his comments and the comments of other standby people in the emergency room in Dallas had
been in the news media and elsewhere. so that added to the confusion.

So following that, and that discussion, and we having a meeting of minds as to generally what was necessary to be accomplished, and being informed by the various people in authority that our gross report should be delivered to the White House physician no later than Sunday evening the next day, 24 hours later or not quite 24 hours later. Not having slept for about 48 hours, I went home and rested from noon until 8 or 10 that evening Saturday evening, and then I sat down in front of other notes on which I had made minor comments, handwritten notes.

I wrote the report which is present here. (Humes-Boswell Testimony Before HSCA Medical Panel, 9/16/77, p. 257)

Humes then addressed the fact that he had destroyed some of his autopsy notes:

Now we also have here -- and since it's in the record I want to comment about it -- some comments that I destroyed some notes related to this by burning in the fireplace of my home and that is true. However, nothing that was destroyed is not present in this write-up. (Humes-Boswell Testimony Before HSCA Medical Panel, 9/16/77, p. 257)

The transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session alone proves Humes was lying about this. So does the Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy. So do the accounts of Dr. Ebersole, Dr. Karnei, and med-tech Jenkins, and the HSCA and ARRB testimony of FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill.

There is yet another witness who confirmed that the autopsy doctors found that the back wound had no exit point: Richard Lipsey, who attended the autopsy on orders from Major General Philip Wehle, the commanding general of the Washington, D.C., military district. Lipsey also described in great detail the removal of the chest organs, and he, too, said the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy. Lipsey was interviewed by the HSCA in early 1978. We'll talk about Lipsey's important testimony in a future reply.

MTG would have better luck selling air conditioners to Eskimos than selling this turkey of a theory. According to MTG, once the back wound was probed early on during the autopsy, the probe only passed a few inches into the wound, and somebody uttered the words "no exit", that was the end of the story. Nothing the prosectors learned later on mattered. It didn't matter that once the chest organs were eviscerated, they discovered a trail of tissue damage from the back wound to the tracheostomy incision. It didn't matter that Dr. Perry confirmed to them that he had performed a tracheostomy over the bullet wound in the throat. It didn't matter that it is not remotely possible that a bullet would have only penetrated a few inches into JFK's back. Once somebody uttered the words "no exit", that settled it. That had to be their final answer no matter what else they learned later in the process. The were stuck with that and weren't allowed to change it. The foolishness of that position couldn't be more obvious. Who clings to an early impression once more and better information becomes available? Answer: a JFK conspiracy fanatic. Like MTG. Early on when he read that the words "no exit" were uttered during the probing of the back wound, that became his mantra. He was going to cling to those words no matter what. Since there is no real evidence that somebody other than Oswald took part in the JFKA, he was going to hang on to the magic words "no exit" come hell or high water. There's no reasoning withs somebody that fanatical. It makes me wonder why I even try.

Time for more follow-up. (Yes, I've seen the recent replies by Corbett and Nessan. I think most people will realize that their replies fail to explain the evidence, actually avoid most of the evidence, and are simply not worth answering. If anyone has any questions about their arguments, please let me know.)

By the time Humes got in front of the Warren Commission (WC), he had honed his cover story. He knew he did not dare admit they had been able to probe the back wound to its end point after they opened the chest and removed the chest organs. He knew he could not admit he knew about the throat wound well before the end of the autopsy (much less before it began).

The cover story was essentially this: They were unable to probe the back wound. When they heard about the stretcher bullet found at Parkland Hospital, they entertained the possibility that the bullet had worked its way out of the back wound, but they never formed a firm conclusion about this. They knew nothing about the throat wound until the following day. Humes explained in his HSCA testimony that they learned about the throat wound by no earlier than noon the next day (more on this later). 

Let's read from Humes's WC testimony:

Commander HUMES. Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful without fear of making a false passage.

Mr. SPECTER. What do you mean by that, Doctor?

Commander HUMES. Well, the defect in the fascia [connective tissue] was quite similar, which is the first firm tissue over the muscle beneath the skin, was quite similar to this. We were unable, however, to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point. . . .

Mr. SPECTER. Now, Doctor Humes, at one point in your examination of the President, did you make an effort to probe the point of entry with your finger?

Commander HUMES. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. SPECTER. And at or about that time when you were trying to ascertain, as you previously testified, whether there was any missile in the body of the President, did someone from the Secret Service call your attention to the fact that a bullet had been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital?

Commander HUMES. Yes, sir; they did.

Mr. SPECTER. And in that posture of your examination, having just learned of the presence of a bullet on a stretcher, did that call to your mind any tentative explanatory theory of the point of entry or exit of the bullet which you have described as entering at Point “C” on Exhibit 385?

Commander HUMES. Yes, sir. We were able to ascertain with absolute certainty that the bullet had passed by the apical portion of the right lung producing the injury which we mentioned. (2 H 361, 367)

Let's pause for a second. Humes was blowing smoke here, pretending that this damage suggested a path between the back wound and the throat wound, when in fact this damage was below the throat wound, not above it. The "apical portion of the right lung" is the medical term for the very top part of the right lung. This damage would have been plainly visible once they opened the chest and removed the chest organs, which included the lungs.

Dr. Perry noted damage in this same area in Dallas, without the benefit of having the lungs removed. He detected damage in the "right superior mediastinum," i.e., the very top of the righthand side of the chest compartment, which includes the apical part of the right lung. The apical segment of the right lung is exactly in this area in the chest compartment and is right next to the trachea.

Dr. Perry also saw damage to the right-side strap muscles in the front part of the neck and to the trachea itself, which, along with the hematoma at the top-right part of the chest cavity, logically led him to conclude that the bullet had ranged downward into the chest after entering the throat, since much of the damage was below the throat wound (the rest was parallel to it).

For more information on the damage that Dr. Perry identified on, behind, and under the throat wound, see my article "Research Notes on the Shored-Wound Theory to Explain JFK’s Throat Wound,", which I've linked twice already in this thread.

Let's continue with Humes's cover story to the WC:

I did not at that point have the information from Doctor Perry about the wound in the anterior neck, and while that was a possible explanation for the point of exit, we also had to consider the possibility that the missile in some rather inexplicable fashion had been stopped in its path through the President’s body and, in fact, then had fallen from the body onto the stretcher.

Mr. SPECTER. And what theory did you think possible, at that juncture, to explain the passing of the bullet back out the point of entry; or had you been provided with the fact that external heart massage had been performed on the President?

Commander HUMES. Yes, sir; we had, and we considered the possibility that some of the physical maneuvering performed by the doctors might have in some way caused this event to take place. (2 H 367)

Now, notice Humes said nothing about the removal of the chest organs to facilitate the probing, and nothing about the fact that with the chest organs removed they were able to probe the back wound to its end point and could see that it did not penetrate into the lining of the chest cavity. These were two key facts that Humes and the WC had to conceal at all costs. That's why the Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy was suppressed. 

In his HSCA testimony, Humes went into more detail about when he supposedly first learned about the throat wound and about when he wrote the final version of the autopsy report:

Dr. HUMES. Having completed the examination and remaining to assist the morticians in the preparation of the body, we did not leave the autopsy room until 5:30 or 6 in the morning. . . .
 
Dr. BOSWELL. Saturday morning we got together and we called Dallas.

Dr. HUMES. We called Dallas. See we were at a loss because we hadn't appreciated the exit wound in the neck. . . .

Dr. BADEN: Now this was the day after?

Dr. HUMES. The day after, within 6 or 8 hours of having completed the examination assisting Waller's and so forth for the preparation of the President's remains. We got together and discussed our problem. We said we've got to talk to the people in Dallas. . . .

So I called Dr. Perry. Took me a little while to reach him. We had a very nice conversation on the phone in which he described a missile wound what he interpreted as a missile wound in the midline of the neck through which he had created a very quick emergency as you can see from the photographs tracheotomy incision, in effect destroying its value to us and obscuring it very gorgeously for us. Well, of course, the minute he said that to me, lights went on and we said, ah, we have some place for our missile to have gone. (Humes-Boswell Testimony Before HSCA Medical Panel, 9/16/77, pp. 256-257)

Obviously, the last statement refutes any notion that during the autopsy the pathologists saw a path from the back wound to the throat wound. Notice that Humes claimed that as of Saturday morning, they still could not figure out where the back-wound bullet had gone.

Mind you, since Humes said he didn't leave the autopsy room until 5:30 or 6:00 that morning, "6 or 8 hours" after that means he didn't meet with Boswell and Finck and call Perry until noon on Saturday, at the earliest.

Obviously, we're dealing with some fiction here, but it's worth noting the timeline that Humes put forward.

Also, I should note that Humes's conversation with Perry was anything but "very nice." Perry told Nurse Audrey Bell and three journalists that he received several calls from Bethesda during the night, and that they argued with him about the throat wound and tried to persuade him to change his mind about it. Also, thanks to Dr. Ebersole, we know that Humes first spoke with Perry during the autopsy at 10:00 or 10:30, and that that was when he learned about the throat wound.

Keep in mind, too, that Boswell initially told his HSCA interviewer that during the autopsy, the autopsy doctors thought the throat wound was a bullet wound, and that he could see the bottom half of the bullet wound in the throat. The fact that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy was confirmed by Dr. Ebersole.

Let's continue: 

And then, of course, I asked him, much to my amazement, had he or any other physician in attendance upon the President examined the back of the patient, his neck or his shoulder? They said no, the patient had never been moved from his back while they were administering to him.

So the confusion that existed from some of his comments and the comments of other standby people in the emergency room in Dallas had
been in the news media and elsewhere. so that added to the confusion.

So following that, and that discussion, and we having a meeting of minds as to generally what was necessary to be accomplished, and being informed by the various people in authority that our gross report should be delivered to the White House physician no later than Sunday evening the next day, 24 hours later or not quite 24 hours later. Not having slept for about 48 hours, I went home and rested from noon until 8 or 10 that evening Saturday evening, and then I sat down in front of other notes on which I had made minor comments, handwritten notes.

I wrote the report which is present here. (Humes-Boswell Testimony Before HSCA Medical Panel, 9/16/77, p. 257)

Humes then addressed the fact that he had destroyed some of his autopsy notes:

Now we also have here -- and since it's in the record I want to comment about it -- some comments that I destroyed some notes related to this by burning in the fireplace of my home and that is true. However, nothing that was destroyed is not present in this write-up. (Humes-Boswell Testimony Before HSCA Medical Panel, 9/16/77, p. 257)

The transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session alone proves Humes was lying about this. So does the Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy. So do the accounts of Dr. Ebersole, Dr. Karnei, and med-tech Jenkins, and the HSCA and ARRB testimony of FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill.

There is yet another witness who confirmed that the autopsy doctors found that the back wound had no exit point: Richard Lipsey, who attended the autopsy on orders from Major General Philip Wehle, the commanding general of the Washington, D.C., military district. Lipsey also described in great detail the removal of the chest organs, and he, too, said the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy. Lipsey was interviewed by the HSCA in early 1978. We'll talk about Lipsey's important testimony in a future reply.