Creative Speculation

Repeating myself is getting tiresome. It would really help if you would pick any one claim that you think would actually be conclusive of a conspiracy, and then actually substantiate it, and then actually state the argument that you think can be based on that claim. Instead of that, we get more of this stuff:

> There is a routine understood procedure for forensic pathologists to track a wound and it was not done.

(A) You have demonstrated no such "understood procedure," and (B) you have not even attempted any logical argument for why that indicates a conspiracy, anyway. No doubt, the autopsy would have been done much differently if the doctors had anticipated the rise of conspiracy crackpottery, but I can understand why that thought apparently didn't occur to them at the time. The fundamental purpose of an autopsy is to determine the cause of death, and there really wasn't any doubt whatsoever about that.

> There is no evidence to show a "hole passing all the way through his body".

Of course there is! There's an entrance wound in the back, a nick on the C6 vertebra, bruising of the top of the lung, and an exit wound at the throat. Now, do you claim magic disappearing bullets, or do you claim that one of the doctors simply punched holes in the body? Please provide your evidence with your answer.

> Medical literature studying gunshot wounds which do pass through, especially in the neck area, describes damage in much greater severity than was found with JFK. Mannlicher-Carcano weapons in particular, as described in medical literature, create "shredding" "tearing" injuries in a fairly wide cone around the path.

And again and again, no real attempt to substantiate your hand-waving assertions, and no attempt to make a logical argument from them, anyway. If you're trying to claim that this was not a wound caused by that guy who was observed shooting at the limo from the TSBD, then (A) what the hell do you claim it was, and (B) where is your evidence?

> FBI records show that CE399 was received in Washington about 90 minutes before the Secret Service guy who carried the bullet handed it over.

Conspiracy or no, that makes no sense whatsoever. A sane person would suspect that one (or both) of the times that you're comparing is wrong.

> Except the entry wound in Connally's back does not support the notion of a tumbling bullet and so it doesn't matter what Lattimer's experiments showed.

In the first place, yes, it does "support the notion of a tumbling bullet" since it was an "ellipsoid" wound 7mm x 15mm, and repeating your "appeal to authority" fallacy involving Shaw's opinion doesn't change that fact. In the second place, it doesn't really matter how it entered the back, since the issue is whether or not it was tumbling when it exited the torso and hit the wrist bone. Fail.