Autopsy proves SBT impossible

[Jim Brunsman]

Thanks Mike. I was aware of Humes' testimony on this matter, but I wondered if LBJ or one of his minions called....

[Jim Brunsman]

The newbie is not only arrogant but misinformed. Do your research on what the autopsy witnesses said. There was considerable confusion about how the back wound did not exit the president. Again, tired of explaining this, but unless you can manufacture another wound on the rear of the president's body that DID exit on the front, the imbecilic SBT is COMPLETELY OBLITERATED. Never mind all the other evidence that shows the theory is total nonsense. The official autopsy report is such a pack of lies, it should be featured in every forensic textbook as an example of how NOT to conduct an autopsy.
You state:
"If one accepts that JFK's back wound was an entry wound and that no bullet was found in the body, it stands to reason that the bullet transversed his body and could have gone on to strike JBC." No, remember, Humes probed the wound and could feel the end of it with his finger. THE BULLET DID NOT TRAVERSE THE BODY. How could this bullet have been a threat to JBC? Come on SBT folks, let's hear more nonsense explanations of this!

[Tim Nickerson]

The newbie is not only arrogant but misinformed. Do your research on what the autopsy witnesses said. There was considerable confusion about how the back wound did not exit the president. Again, tired of explaining this, but unless you can manufacture another wound on the rear of the president's body that DID exit on the front, the imbecilic SBT is COMPLETELY OBLITERATED. Never mind all the other evidence that shows the theory is total nonsense. The official autopsy report is such a pack of lies, it should be featured in every forensic textbook as an example of how NOT to conduct an autopsy.
You state:
"If one accepts that JFK's back wound was an entry wound and that no bullet was found in the body, it stands to reason that the bullet transversed his body and could have gone on to strike JBC." No, remember, Humes probed the wound and could feel the end of it with his finger. THE BULLET DID NOT TRAVERSE THE BODY. How could this bullet have been a threat to JBC? Come on SBT folks, let's hear more nonsense explanations of this!

You are a BLOWHARD. The SBT has in no way been obliterated. It hasn't even been scratched.

[Matt Grantham]

The newbie is not only arrogant but misinformed. Do your research on what the autopsy witnesses said. There was considerable confusion about how the back wound did not exit the president. Again, tired of explaining this, but unless you can manufacture another wound on the rear of the president's body that DID exit on the front, the imbecilic SBT is COMPLETELY OBLITERATED. Never mind all the other evidence that shows the theory is total nonsense. The official autopsy report is such a pack of lies, it should be featured in every forensic textbook as an example of how NOT to conduct an autopsy.
You state:
"If one accepts that JFK's back wound was an entry wound and that no bullet was found in the body, it stands to reason that the bullet transversed his body and could have gone on to strike JBC." No, remember, Humes probed the wound and could feel the end of it with his finger. THE BULLET DID NOT TRAVERSE THE BODY. How could this bullet have been a threat to JBC? Come on SBT folks, let's hear more nonsense explanations of this!

 Don't forget that the missing X ray from Bethesda was supposedly an image of JFK's upper lung, so it is possible the bullet id inside of JFK's chest IMO

[Tim Nickerson]

Don't forget that the missing X ray from Bethesda was supposedly an image of JFK's upper lung, so it is possible the bullet id inside of JFK's chest IMO

There is no missing x-ray.

[Matt Grantham]

There is no missing x-ray.

." (7 HSCA 115)
The next nail on the box demonstrating forgery or tampering
with the autopsy photographs and X-rays is Dr. Humes' clear
statements about having taken chest photographs, which are
missing from the National Archives: "That's one photograph that
we were distressed not to find when we first went through and
catalogued these photographs, (in 1966-7) because I distinctly
recall going to great lengths to try and get the interior upper
6
portion of the right thorax illuminated--you know the technical
difficulties with that, getting the camera positioned and so
forth, and what happened to that film, I don't know. There were
a couple of films that apparently had been exposed to light or
whatever and then not developed, but we never saw that
photograph." (7 HSCA 253) This is more evidence of Robert
Bouck's "burn party."

[Tim Nickerson]

." (7 HSCA 115)
The next nail on the box demonstrating forgery or tampering
with the autopsy photographs and X-rays is Dr. Humes' clear
statements about having taken chest photographs, which are
missing from the National Archives: "That's one photograph that
we were distressed not to find when we first went through and
catalogued these photographs, (in 1966-7) because I distinctly
recall going to great lengths to try and get the interior upper
6
portion of the right thorax illuminated--you know the technical
difficulties with that, getting the camera positioned and so
forth, and what happened to that film, I don't know. There were
a couple of films that apparently had been exposed to light or
whatever and then not developed, but we never saw that
photograph." (7 HSCA 253) This is more evidence of Robert
Bouck's "burn party."

Humes thought that a photograph of the opened upper chest had been taken. A photograph. It's unlikely that such a photograph was taken but that's another matter. There is no missing x-ray.

[Matt Grantham]

Humes thought that a photograph of the opened upper chest had been taken. A photograph. It's unlikely that such a photograph was taken but that's another matter. There is no missing x-ray.

 Semantics Xray of the upper chest correct? Supposedly there is one but I cannot find it