Autopsy proves SBT impossible

[Jim Brunsman]

Witnesses at the autopsy reported that Humes seemed very frustrated that the back wound did not exit the body and the bullet wasn't to be found. Humes probed this wound and felt the end of it with his finger. All you "Oswald framers" out there need to explain how a bullet that didn't exit the president's body was supposed to hit the governor. Never mind the fact that the throat wound was an entry wound according to all the Parkland witnesses. This should end the debate about the magic bullet because that's only one of MANY reasons it's impossible for anyone to commit this assassination alone.

P.S. This is my first new topic so I hope I haven't repeated what someone else has posted. By way of introduction, I learned of the assassination when Sister Mary Pierre told my first grade class. I now reflect on how deeply affected the nuns were to lose the first Catholic president in such a violent way. I have been interested in the assassination from the start and read everything I could get my hands on. I have met a few people related to the investigation. I met Mark Weiss, the acoustic expert briefly. I spoke to Robert Pierpoint of CBS News. He stuck to the Warren Commission story and was in the press bus at the back of the motorcade so he witnessed little of note. I interviewed Robert Groden in Dealey Plaza but there were too many others there to get into detail. I interviewed David Lifton on the phone in 1986 because I was astounded at "Best Evidence." Since then Doug Horne has corroborated much of Lifton's shocking research.
  I remain frustrated that the media and mainstream educators refuse to do the research that will exonerate Oswald. I think it's ridiculous that the patsy's name is the one associated with this horrific crime. There are some intelligent folks here who totally buy the frame job. For me it's so obvious that there are multiple assassins. It's much the same as how polarized our views are concerning Donald Trump. To me it's painfully obvious he is a repugnant and despicable human being who cares only about himself and a few select Caucasian one percenters. But I know a very few people who stand by the president and can rationalize his infantile behavior. I'm not one of them. So there!

[Tim Nickerson]

Witnesses at the autopsy reported that Humes seemed very frustrated that the back wound did not exit the body and the bullet wasn't to be found. Humes probed this wound and felt the end of it with his finger. All you "Oswald framers" out there need to explain how a bullet that didn't exit the president's body was supposed to hit the governor. Never mind the fact that the throat wound was an entry wound according to all the Parkland witnesses. This should end the debate about the magic bullet because that's only one of MANY reasons it's impossible for anyone to commit this assassination alone.

P.S. This is my first new topic so I hope I haven't repeated what someone else has posted. By way of introduction, I learned of the assassination when Sister Mary Pierre told my first grade class. I now reflect on how deeply affected the nuns were to lose the first Catholic president in such a violent way. I have been interested in the assassination from the start and read everything I could get my hands on. I have met a few people related to the investigation. I met Mark Weiss, the acoustic expert briefly. I spoke to Robert Pierpoint of CBS News. He stuck to the Warren Commission story and was in the press bus at the back of the motorcade so he witnessed little of note. I interviewed Robert Groden in Dealey Plaza but there were too many others there to get into detail. I interviewed David Lifton on the phone in 1986 because I was astounded at "Best Evidence." Since then Doug Horne has corroborated much of Lifton's shocking research.
  I remain frustrated that the media and mainstream educators refuse to do the research that will exonerate Oswald. I think it's ridiculous that the patsy's name is the one associated with this horrific crime. There are some intelligent folks here who totally buy the frame job. For me it's so obvious that there are multiple assassins. It's much the same as how polarized our views are concerning Donald Trump. To me it's painfully obvious he is a repugnant and despicable human being who cares only about himself and a few select Caucasian one percenters. But I know a very few people who stand by the president and can rationalize his infantile behavior. I'm not one of them. So there!

Hi Jim,

Welcome to the forum.

We "Oswald framers" don't need to explain how a bullet that didn't exit the president's body was supposed to hit the governor because we are still free to not indulge the fantasies of CTs. The bullet that struck Kennedy at the base of the neck from the rear exited his body. It's in the autopsy report. You should read it.

[Bernd Werner]

Witnesses at the autopsy reported that Humes seemed very frustrated that the back wound did not exit the body and the bullet wasn't to be found. Humes probed this wound and felt the end of it with his finger. All you "Oswald framers" out there need to explain how a bullet that didn't exit the president's body was supposed to hit the governor. Never mind the fact that the throat wound was an entry wound according to all the Parkland witnesses. This should end the debate about the magic bullet because that's only one of MANY reasons it's impossible for anyone to commit this assassination alone

And all of Oswald's defenders need to explain how two bullets could be removed from Kennedys throat without leaving any additional wounds.

[Ray Mitcham]

Hi Jim,

Welcome to the forum.

We "Oswald framers" don't need to explain how a bullet that didn't exit the president's body was supposed to hit the governor because we are still free to not indulge the fantasies of CTs. The bullet that struck Kennedy at the base of the neck from the rear exited his body. It's in the autopsy report. You should read it.

How could the autopsy doctors state this with certainty, when they didn't track the wound through the body, Tim?

[Tim Nickerson]

How could the autopsy doctors state this with certainty, when they didn't track the wound through the body, Tim?

Ray,

They had an entrance wound in the posterior at the base of the neck. The X-Rays revealed no bullet inside the body.  After removing the breastplate they found a contusion on the apex of the upper lobe of the right lung. It was obvious to them that the bullet had gone over the top of that lung. They came to realize that the bullet had to have exited from the front of the neck. Humes' phone call to Dr. Perry confirmed it for them.

[Ray Mitcham]

Ray,

They had an entrance wound in the posterior at the base of the neck. The X-Rays revealed no bullet inside the body.  After removing the breastplate they found a contusion on the apex of the upper lobe of the right lung. It was obvious to them that the bullet had gone over the top of that lung. They came to realize that the bullet had to have exited from the front of the neck. Humes' phone call to Dr. Perry confirmed it for them.

It was a cock-up of an autopsy. How can an incredible autopsy be considered as any evidence.

So the "bullet hit the top of the right lung" and exited through the throat? 

If that was the case then the bullet would have been travelling in an upward direction.

[Tim Nickerson]

It was a cock-up of an autopsy. How can an incredible autopsy be considered as any evidence.

It was an official autopsy. That the findings of it don't match up with your conspiratorial beliefs is your problem, not mine.

So the "bullet hit the top of the right lung" and exited through the throat? 

If that was the case then the bullet would have been travelling in an upward direction.

The bullet never hit the top of the right lung. It passed over the top of the right lung. It did so in a downward direction.

[Matt Grantham]

It was an official autopsy. That the findings of it don't match up with your conspiratorial beliefs is your problem, not mine.

 Well its been pretty polite up to this point , but I am going to object to this There is the logical fallacy of begging the question, and in my opinion it is particularly prevalent among those who official stories of some sort behind them Apparently this perspective allows them a free pass form this otherwise prohibitive fundament of logic based solely on the conclusion of organization Conclusion's, regardless of who came up with them, are not not allowed to explain debates at premises according to the rules of logic