56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.

[Michael Walton]

Come on, Jerry. Are you really that obtuse? Every time I post this, you keep taking things literally and expect me to explain it to you further.

I'm not going to do that. If you can't figure it out what I'm trying to show and say here, I don't know what else to say except we'll keep going around in circles with this.

[Jerry Organ]

Come on, Jerry. Are you really that obtuse? Every time I post this, you keep taking things literally and expect me to explain it to you further.

I'm not going to do that. If you can't figure it out what I'm trying to show and say here, I don't know what else to say except we'll keep going around in circles with this.

And if I do so, I'm putting words in your mouth. How long will it take to articulate something in a sentence or two? Your contention is something simple and obvious, right? You're the one being evasive. You became downright non-responsive after your post in another topic: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg69539.html#msg69539

One graphic has a cropped autopsy photo stuck on a re-enactment photo and the other graphic claims there was no exit. I dealt with the latter by citing the Lattimer test and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel in another topic. Fine if we disagree but don't say you're not getting answers.

Does the autopsy photo in the re-enactment graphic have some significance?

As explained, the re-enactment and autopsy photo were taken at different camera angles, and therefore the surface of the back and shoulders appearing in each photo show at a different angle. The autopsy photo shows an entry wound at the base of the back of the neck. A projection from there to the exit wound at the base of the front of the throat is downward.

[Bill Chapman]

Just a rule reminder for Chapman.

"Behave at all times, no swearing, racism or personal insults."

 

Point out where I show racism here.
And I push back far better than you talentless dullards.

Go ahead, make my day

[Tim Nickerson]

Nice. Very nice. Like this one. I'm still waiting for one of the geniuses here to tell me how in the XXXX that bullet went upward and out of the neck...

The bullet never went upward. It's trajectory was always downward.

[Jerry Freeman]

What point? You refuse to engage in the details because you are woefully ignorant of them. You’re here to play games and try to look “clever”.
  I'm still waiting for one of the geniuses here to tell me how in the XXXX that bullet went upward and out of the neck...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/autopsy-descriptive-sheet-0 

The bullet never went upward. It's trajectory was always downward.

If that is true...according to the autopsy notes above....the bullet should have gone downward into the center of the chest.

[Tim Nickerson]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/autopsy-descriptive-sheet-0 
If that is true...according to the autopsy notes above....the bullet should have gone downward into the center of the chest.

According to the notations on that Face Sheet, the bullet entered 14 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process.  Correct?  The downward angle of trajectory would have had to be a hell of a lot greater than 17.5 degrees in order for the bullet to enter the center of the chest. Jerry Organ has a superb graphic explaining the path through Kennedy. Have you ever seen it?

[Jerry Organ]

This graphic by unknown appears to show the missile channel would have passed by the spine at the T1 level. But it's obvious the skull overlay is too small, which draws upward the cervical vertebrae.

[Jack Trojan]

This graphic by unknown appears to show the missile channel would have passed by the spine at the T1 level. But it's obvious the skull overlay is too small, which draws upward the cervical vertebrae.

When are you going to accept that you can't measure a 2D image this way? Your POV is never a perfect profile and all measurements are distorted. This is not how photogrammetry is done. Do the damn 2 laser challenge if you actually care about the truth and you want to advance your argument. Otherwise, your graphics are worse than misleading.