Autopsy proves SBT impossible

[Bernd Werner]

Doctors who saw the wound pre-tracheotomy said it was an entrance wound. Their reasoning: The shock

wave from a rifle bullet would have created more damage and left a much larger exit wound in the front of

JFK's throat.

Unfortunately these doctors had no experience with wound ballistics, so there reasoning was just the guess of laymen.

[John Iacoletti]

Which is at best a wild speculation by Sibert an O'Neill, or is there any evidence supporting this path?

Do you think Sibert and O'Neill just made this up?  Or were they reporting what they heard the autopsy doctors saying?

[John Iacoletti]

I know, that there was no analysis of the bullet path of the non lethal wound. If this path was not analysed, no definite assertion about the angle of the entering bullet could be made.

Then why did the autopsy doctors make that assertion?

[Bernd Werner]

Then why did the autopsy doctors make that assertion?

I don't know, I don't even know, if they even stated it. All I know is, that the bullet path was not probed, and that guys, that refuse the single bullet theory use this as an argument, if it matches their believes. It is quite funny, that you ignore this now, as it doesn't fit!

[John Iacoletti]

I don't know, I don't even know, if they even stated it. All I know is, that the bullet path was not probed, and that guys, that refuse the single bullet theory use this as an argument, if it matches their believes. It is quite funny, that you ignore this now, as it doesn't fit!

So if your point is that the autopsy doctors didn't know what they were doing, I'll go along with that.

[Matt Grantham]

 Bernard  said

I know, that there was no analysis of the bullet path of the non lethal wound. If this path was not analysed, no definite assertion about the angle of the entering bullet could be made. If anyone cites this angle as evidence against the single bullet theory, I'd call this person disingenuous! I for myself try to relate on actual evidence.


 Matt replies  Who has ever asserted this? Folks cite that most of them thought it was an entrance wound, but the angle? I don't get it

[Mike Orr]

 Specter asked Pierre Finck, " Could CE 399 have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?"

 "No," Finck replied, " for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist," the problem being as Finck put it, " there was practically no loss of this bullet."

[Tim Nickerson]

Specter asked Pierre Finck, " Could CE 399 have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?"

 "No," Finck replied, " for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist," the problem being as Finck put it, " there was practically no loss of this bullet."

Finck was wrong. There were five fragments in the wrist. One of the five was considerably larger than the other four. If all five fragments had been the size of the largest, their combined mass would still not exceed the amount of mass missing from CE-399.