What are you laughing about? One picture is worth a thousand words. In your case it is two autopsy pictures must be worth two thousand words. Why continue to deny what can be visually verified? First, there is not a wound in the back of the head. That removes most of your experts from the discussion. That pretty much leaves just the individual who said it was 1 to 2 ounces.
More LOL! IOW, all the evidence that the autopsy photos are inaccurate is wrong because the autopsy photos must be accurate! This is another version of your circular, evasive argument. You wave aside all the evidence that contradicts the autopsy photos--the OD measurements, the conflicting skull x-rays, the massive and mutually corroborating eyewitness accounts of a large back-of-head wound, the 16 surfaces onto which brain matter were blown--because you assume the autopsy photos are accurate.
OD measurements? Really. These experts, were they not aware of the photos? Is it too late to send them to these experts?
IOW, the known and established science of optical density (OD) measurement of x-rays must be discarded in this case because multiple and independently done OD measurements of the JFK skull x-rays contradict the autopsy brain photos! Here, too, your argument boils down to the silly circular dodge that even hard scientific evidence against the autopsy brain photos cannot be valid because the autopsy brain photos are valid, even though the brain photos contradict the autopsy report, even though Dr. Humes himself admitted that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blown away, even though Dr. Fred Hodges said the skull x-rays show "a goodly portion of the right brain" missing, even though numerous witnesses said a bare minimum of 1/4 of the brain was gone, and even though we know that pieces of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces.
MG---"At some point, you have to face Occam's Razor and stop denying hard science and solid evidence just because they destroy your version of the shooting."
The only Occam's Razor in any of this exists in the number of shots. Occam's razor supports there were only two shots. As did the WC and HSCA conclusions. Why aren’t you proposing two shots in 5.6 seconds? That is what Josiah wrote in Six Seconds in Dallas. He has been right about that since 1966 but refuses to accept he was correct. If you can actually prove there was a third shot in the 5.6 seconds, you can prove there was a conspiracy. Is not that your goal here? Proving a conspiracy?
Huh??? The WC said there were three shots. The HSCA said there were four shots, and presented scientific acoustical evidence that at least four shots were fired, and that one of them came from the grassy knoll.
If there had been a lone-gunman firing from the sixth-floor window, then, as I've said many times, he would have to go two for two in 5.6 seconds with his last two shots.
