Here's May still trying to gaslight history. Not going to work on my watch, pal. I cite the back wound not exiting as proof of the impossibility of the SBT and he trots out a bunch of irrelevant ballistic evidence that makes zero sense. Your arguments are the most archaic, disproven, unscientific nonsense imaginable. Yaw angle is somehow supposed to supersede the obvious implications of a non-transit through the president's body? You also said at one point that there really are exit wounds on the front of the body. Strange, but I have seen no evidence to support this dubious claim. The doctors at Parkland certainly didn't report any such thing. How do you explain all the medical witnesses who report a huge hole in the back of the head? I'm sure you will dodge that too. Again, so pointless to be here....
This conversation will end here. Here’s what’s known for SURE: I’ve given you rational responses to questions concerning ballistics which a first year researcher should know. Here’s what you have shown readers of this thread:
1. You do no research. You read conspiracy books.
2.The basics of the case and the capabilities of ammunition is beyond your understanding.
3. You lie continuously about the actual evidence.
4. The neck wound ballistically was an exit wound. That’s been proven by the tie nick. Hence, a wound in the front of the body. The metal fragments found in Connally’s body are tied ballistically to Oswald’s MC. You call this “irrelevant” ballistic evidence”.
5. The doctors at Parkland were ER doctors, ONLY concerned with saving a life not determining cause of death.
6. The authenticated autopsy photos along with any ballistic evidence trump ANY witness testimony. Always.
7. History is debated, never argued. You cannot debate because you don’t know the case AT ALL. Not surprising. This is what happens when you read conspiracy crap and do no actual research.
8. Your inability to answer even my most basic questions tells all the readers of this thread what they need to know about you. Want to talk 50 year old plus crap, Brunsman’s your guy.
Duncan MacPherson, a highly respected wound ballistic expert and author of the book “Bullet Penetration” had no interest in the JFK assassination but did make this comment about conspiracy types which describes you perfectly:
“I’m always amused by people who attempt to speak authoritatively on subjects they know nothing about specifically regarding firearms”.
Now, go sell your crap to some first year researcher like yourself. You won’t find him/her on this site.
