71
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory
« Last post by Jack Nessan on July 24, 2026, 03:09:53 PM »"Random"? "Loose with the facts"? I quoted sourced statements from autopsy witnesses, including Dr. Robert Karnei and Dr. John Ebersole, proving that the autopsy doctors established beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point. I pointed out that the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session proves that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound as an exit point for the back wound. And, I quoted sourced statements that prove the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound before the autopsy and that Humes talked to Perry well before the autopsy ended, contrary to Humes's lie that he didn't talk to Perry until the following morning.
LOL! Are you caught in a time warp where it's still 1964? I mean, is this a serious question? Are you aware that the FBI and Secret Service analyses of the shooting concluded that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets? Are you aware that Connally himself insisted he was hit by a different bullet than the one that hit JFK in the back? Are you aware that the most sophisticated, advanced SBT trajectory study ever conducted, done by Knott Lab in 2023, determined that JFK and Connally were never in position for the SBT to be possible, proving that they could not have been hit by the same bullet?
The question you should be asking yourself is, "How can I still believe in the SBT when there is so much compelling evidence that the back wound had no exit point, that no bullet exited the throat, and that the throat wound was an entry wound?"
Can you read? You have totally misread what Boswell said. He said nothing about his "initial impression" or "first impression." He said that initially they were unable to probe the back wound because the muscles blocked the wound path, but that after they opened the chest, they were able to probe the wound and determine that the bullet did not enter the lung cavity but merely caused bruising outside the pleura.
As I documented, Dr. Karnei explained that after they removed the chest organs and resumed the probing, the men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. Dr. Ebersole said that "further probing" and "inspection" revealed "there was no point of exit." It was this point, explained Sibert and O'Neill, that the autopsy doctors, particularly Finck, announced that the back wound had no exit point.
People are going to easily see through your dishonest, phony argument that this was just a "first impression." No, this was the final, definitive, visually confirmed finding by the end of the autopsy. That's why Sibert and O'Neill, the two FBI agents at the autopsy, included the "no exit" finding in their report on the autopsy. That's why they told the ARRB that at the end of the autopsy, there was no doubt whatsoever that the back wound had no exit point.
LOL! I again ask, can you read? Do you understand English beyond a grade-school level? How can you make this argument with a straight face?
In a previous reply, you repeated the long-debunked lone-gunman lie that Humes did not know about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy. I just proved to you that this is false, that Humes talked to Perry at least 90 minutes before the autopsy ended. So there was no "more and better information" to be gathered.
At the end of the autopsy, at least 90 minutes after Humes had talked to Perry about the throat wound, the autopsy doctors were absolutely certain that the back wound had no exit point -- they knew this because they had been able to probe the wound to its end after they removed the chest organs and had seen with their own eyes that the wound path did not enter the lining of the chest cavity.
That's why Dr. Karnei explained that after the doctors opened the chest, removed the chest organs, and resumed the probing, the men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. That's why Dr. Ebersole said that "further probing" and "inspection" revealed "there was no point of exit." That's why Navy medical technician James Jenkins, serving as Dr. Boswell's assistant during the autopsy, observed that he and others around the autopsy table could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity and that "there was no entry into the chest cavity." That's why Dr. Boswell himself told the ARRB that the bullet "had not pierced through into the lung cavity." That's why Sibert and O'Neill observed in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy that "further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance." That's why Sibert and O'Neill confirmed this fact in the plainest possible English to the ARRB, stressing that the autopsy doctors had no doubt whatsoever about this.
It was only after Oswald was murdered that the no-exit finding was suppressed and replaced by the fiction that the back-wound bullet exited the throat. In order to make that tale even theoretically possible, Humes had to relocate the back wound some 2 inches upward so as to put it above the throat wound and to enable a downward trajectory through the neck, a falsehood that the HSCA FPP corrected, to their credit.
Wrong answer. A litany of circus act, clown show experts leads you to this tortured understanding of the assassination? You need new experts.
All of this posted ridiculous nonsense and you still cannot explain the wound in JBC's back. Kind of pathetic. How did you ever go so far off the rails? The sad part is it is similar to your understanding of the headshot. Maybe the two shots and subsequent wounds are not your area of expertise.
Recent Posts
There was no Ukraine/Russia war under Obama.