The following are excerpts taken from various stages of Dr. Perry's WC testimony about the throat wound.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe that wound as precisely as you can, please?
Dr. PERRY - The wound was roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched-out wound, actually, nor was it particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut, but the blood obscured any detail about the edges of the wound exactly.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the condition of the edges of the wound, if you can recollect?
Dr. PERRY - I couldn't state with certainty, due to the fact that they were covered by blood. and I did not make a minute examination. I determined only the fact that there was a wound there, roughly 5 mm. in size or so.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you now described it as precisely as you can; that wound? Dr. PERRY - I think so.

Mr. SPECTER - Have you described all of the efforts which were made to revive the President?
Dr. PERRY - There were other procedures done that I did not do during this period. I did not describe in detail the performance of the tracheotomy. It seems that that is really not necessary at this time, unless you want it.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe it in detail, the procedures which were followed in the efforts to save the President's life?
Dr. PERRY - All right. Well, to regress, then, at the time I began the tracheotomy, I made an incision right through the wound which was present in the neck in order to gain complete control of any injury in the underlying trachea.
I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried it down to the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying the thyroid and the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral aspect of the trachea at the level of the
external wound. The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea. At this point, I recall, Dr. Jones right on my left was placing a catheter into a vein
in the-left arm because he handed me a necessary instrument which I needed in the performance of the procedure.
The wound in the trachea was then enlarged to admit a cuffed tracheotomy tube to support respiration. I noted that there was free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum.
Although I saw no injury to the lung or to the pleural space, the presence of this free blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound of the right hemithorax, and I asked that someone put a right chest tube in for seal drainage. At the time I
did not know who did this, but I have been informed that Dr. Baxter and Dr. Paul Peters inserted the chest tube and connected it to underwater drainage.
Blood transfusions and fluid transfusions were being given at this time, and through the previous venesections that had been done by Dr. Jones and Dr. Carrico.
Also, the President had received 300 mg. of Solucortef in order to support his adrenal glands, since it was common medical knowledge that he suffered from adrenal insufficiency.
Of course, oxygen and pressure breathing were being effected under the guidance of Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Giesecke, who were handling the anesthesia machine at the head of the table.
Dr. Bashour and Dr. Seldin, in addition to Dr. Clark, had arrived and also assisted in monitoring cardiac actions, as indicated by the oscilloscope and the cardiotachioscope.

Mr. SPECTER - Were there sufficient facts available to you for you to reach a conclusion as to the cause of the wound on the front side of the President's neck?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir, there was not. I could not determine whether or how this was inflicted, per se, since it would require tracing the trajectory.

Mr. SPECTER - Well, what questions were asked of you and what responses did you give at that press conference?
Dr. PERRY - Well, there were numerous questions asked, all the questions I cannot remember, of course. Specifically, the thing that seemed to be of most interest at that point was actually trying to get me to speculate as to direction of the bullets, the
number of bullets, and the exact cause of death.
The first two questions I could not answer, and my reply to them was that I did not know, if there were one or two bullets, and I could not categorically state about the nature of the neck wound, whether it was an entrance or an exit wound, not having
examined the President further---I could not comment on any other injuries.
As regards the cause of death, Dr. Clark and I concurred that massive brain trauma with attendant severe hemorrhage was the underlying cause of death, and then there were questions asked in regard to what we did, and I described as I have for you,
although not in such detail essentially the resuscitative measures that were taken at that time; namely, the reinfusion of a balanced salt solution of blood, Solucortef, assisting of respiration with oxygen and pressure apparatus, the tracheotomy, and
the chest tubes and the monitoring with the cardiotachioscope.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:49:31 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

The following are excerpts taken from various stages of Dr. Perry's WC testimony about the throat wound.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe that wound as precisely as you can, please? Dr. PERRY - The wound was roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched-out wound, actually, nor was it particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut, but the blood obscured any detail about the edges of the wound exactly.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the condition of the edges of the wound, if you can recollect?
Dr. PERRY - I couldn't state with certainty, due to the fact that they were covered by blood. and I did not make a minute examination. I determined only the fact that there was a wound there, roughly 5 mm. in size or so.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you now described it as precisely as you can; that wound? Dr. PERRY - I think so.

Mr. SPECTER - Have you described all of the efforts which were made to revive the President?
Dr. PERRY - There were other procedures done that I did not do during this period. I did not describe in detail the performance of the tracheotomy. It seems that that is really not necessary at this time, unless you want it.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe it in detail, the procedures which were followed in the efforts to save the President's life?
Dr. PERRY - All right. Well, to regress, then, at the time I began the tracheotomy, I made an incision right through the wound which was present in the neck in order to gain complete control of any injury in the underlying trachea.
I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried it down to the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying the thyroid and the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral aspect of the trachea at the level of the

external wound. The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea. At this point, I recall, Dr. Jones right on my left was placing a catheter into a vein
in the-left arm because he handed me a necessary instrument which I needed in the performance of the procedure.

The wound in the trachea was then enlarged to admit a cuffed tracheotomy tube to support respiration. I noted that there was free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum.
Although I saw no injury to the lung or to the pleural space, the presence of this free blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound of the right hemithorax, and I asked that someone put a right chest tube in for seal drainage. At the time

I did not know who did this, but I have been informed that Dr. Baxter and Dr. Paul Peters inserted the chest tube and connected it to underwater drainage.

Blood transfusions and fluid transfusions were being given at this time, and through the previous venesections that had been done by Dr. Jones and Dr. Carrico.
Also, the President had received 300 mg. of Solucortef in order to support his adrenal glands, since it was common medical knowledge that he suffered from adrenal insufficiency.
Of course, oxygen and pressure breathing were being effected under the guidance of Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Giesecke, who were handling the anesthesia machine at the head of the table.
Dr. Bashour and Dr. Seldin, in addition to Dr. Clark, had arrived and also assisted in monitoring cardiac actions, as indicated by the oscilloscope and the cardiotachioscope.

Mr. SPECTER - Were there sufficient facts available to you for you to reach a conclusion as to the cause of the wound on the front side of the President's neck?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir, there was not. I could not determine whether or how this was inflicted, per se, since it would require tracing the trajectory.

Mr. SPECTER - Well, what questions were asked of you and what responses did you give at that press conference?
Dr. PERRY - Well, there were numerous questions asked, all the questions I cannot remember, of course. Specifically, the thing that seemed to be of most interest at that point was actually trying to get me to speculate as to direction of the bullets,

the number of bullets, and the exact cause of death.

The first two questions I could not answer, and my reply to them was that I did not know, if there were one or two bullets, and I could not categorically state about the nature of the neck wound, whether it was an entrance or an exit wound, not having

examined the President further---I could not comment on any other injuries.

As regards the cause of death, Dr. Clark and I concurred that massive brain trauma with attendant severe hemorrhage was the underlying cause of death, and then there were questions asked in regard to what we did, and I described as I have for you,

although not in such detail essentially the resuscitative measures that were taken at that time; namely, the reinfusion of a balanced salt solution of blood, Solucortef, assisting of respiration with oxygen and pressure apparatus, the tracheotomy, and
the chest tubes and the monitoring with the cardiotachioscope.
Yes, it was an entrance wound.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 10:03:24 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

Yes, it was an entrance wound.

The saga of Dr. Perry is covered here completely. How he was pressured into publicly saying something he knew was not true and what he told other people in private.
Also his initial observations of the wound being one of entrance is corroborated by other doctors.
My research completely destroys the bullshit being pedalled by whacko Corbett.

https://gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 11:27:49 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 10:03:24 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

Yes, it was an entrance wound.

The saga of Dr. Perry is covered here completely. How he was pressured into publicly saying something he knew was not true and what he told other people in private.
Also his initial observations of the wound being one of entrance is corroborated by other doctors.
My research completely destroys the bullshit being pedalled by whacko Corbett.

You completely ignored the argument the part about every forensic examiner who has seen the medical evidence agrees
that the throat wound was an exit. What does your website have to say about that. Or does your website ignore that
inconvenient fact as well. I have no doubt you will never address this.

My purpose in presenting Dr. Perry's WC testimony was to illustrate the fact that he was admitting that he really wasn't
qualified to make the judgement as to whether the wound was an entrance or an exit. It was just his initial impression that
it was an entrance wound and he really wasn't concerned with that aspect. He was trying to save the President's life even
though he was almost sure it was impossible. He explained the edges of the wound were obscured by blood. He flat out
admitted he could not determine how the wound was inflicted. He also noted other damage which would later be discovered
by the autopsy team as well, the damaged trachea and the free blood in the area of the pleura indicative of a wound in that
area.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 1:56:23 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

You completely ignored the argument the part about every forensic examiner who has seen the medical evidence agrees
that the throat wound was an exit. What does your website have to say about that. Or does your website ignore that
inconvenient fact as well. I have no doubt you will never address this.

NAME THEM.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 5:33:11 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 1:56:23 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

You completely ignored the argument the part about every forensic examiner who has seen the medical evidence agrees
that the throat wound was an exit. What does your website have to say about that. Or does your website ignore that
inconvenient fact as well. I have no doubt you will never address this.

NAME THEM.

You are getting pathetic, Gil. You just can't deal with this inconvenient fact. So here we go:

I'm going out on a limb and assume you know Humes, Boswell, and Finck performed the original autopsy.

Now for the HSCA's FPP:
The Forensic Pathology Panel was a group of nine expert pathologists who reviewed the autopsy materials of President John F. Kennedy as part of the investigation conducted by the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). The panel
included Michael Baden, John I. Coe, Joseph H. Davis, George S. Loquvam, Charles S. Petty, Earl Rose, Werner Spitz, Cyril Wecht, and James T. Weston.

Wecht also testified before the Rockefeller Commission and while he does believe there was a second gunman, he does not
base that opinion on the medical evidence nor does he dispute the finding that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from
his throat.

More recently, neuropathologist Dr. Peter Cummings reviewed the medical records in the National Archives and concurred
with the findings that the headshot struck JFK from behind.

Now if you dispute my assertion that every forensic pathologist who has seen the medical evidence concurs with the finding
that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat, all you have to do is find one dissenter. We both know you aren't
going to be able to do with.

So what excuse are you going to come up with next so you don't have to deal with this inconvenient fact?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:28:20 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

You are getting pathetic, Gil. You just can't deal with this inconvenient fact. So here we go:

I'm going out on a limb and assume you know Humes, Boswell, and Finck performed the original autopsy.

Did they examine the throat wound ?
Because they never saw the throat wound and didn't know of its existence until the next day,
which is why their autopsy report referred to the throat wound as "presumably of exit".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/presumably-of-exit.jpg

Now for the HSCA's FPP:
The Forensic Pathology Panel was a group of nine expert pathologists who reviewed the autopsy materials of President John F. Kennedy as part of the investigation conducted by the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). The

panel included Michael Baden, John I. Coe, Joseph H. Davis, George S. Loquvam, Charles S. Petty, Earl Rose, Werner Spitz, Cyril Wecht, and James T. Weston.

The HSCA circus

In the 1970’s the House Select Committee on Assassinations took up the issue of the clean edges of the throat wound. Its Foresic Pathology Panel gave an opinion that defies every known fact regarding bullet exit wounds. You have to read it for

yourself:

The President’s tie and shirt offered enough resistance to the bullet to prevent the outward exploding of the tissue of the neck as the bullet exited.
That's why, the Forensic Pathology Panel said, the hole was small. ( 7 HSCA 185 )

There’s only one problem, a “shored” exit wound leaves a scalloped or “punched out abrasion collar”, something this wound did not have.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6637946/

Dr. Perry described it as “roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched out wound, actually, nor was it particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut..” ( 6 H 9 ).
Dr. Perry knew the second he looked at it that it was a wound of entrance.

In addition, the FBI’s spectrographic tests of President’s shirt and tie which showed that no excess copper was in those locations and no copper was found that “could be attributed to projectile fragments.” ( 20 H 2 )
If the shirt and tie were sufficient to shore, buttress or reinforce the skin ( as the FPP said ), there should have been traces of the copper jacket of CE 399 left on the shirt and tie as it had in the back of the shirt and jacket.

But there were none.

No one at Parkland Hospital ever identified the throat wound as a wound of exit.
The autopsists never examined the wound because they didn't know of its existence. They didn't find out until the following day.
As a result, their autopsy report describes the wound as " presumably of exit ".
No bullet track from the back wound to the throat wound was ever established, meaning that there is no physical evidence of a transiting bullet.
The FBI found no traces of copper on either the front of the shirt or the tie.
You've argued that the throat wound was a wound of exit and yet, as is typical with you, you provide NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support your claim.

You base your conclusions on the expertise of those who never examined the wound and theorized that the President's tie and shirt was strong enough to hold his skin so taut
that a bullet exiting it at 1900+ feet per second would have created a small, clean wound.
Those are some experts.
No wonder Cyril Wecht dissented.

ROFLMAO
That's a good one.

Now for the REAL story:

www.gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

You are getting pathetic, Gil. You just can't deal with this inconvenient fact. So here we go:

I'm going out on a limb and assume you know Humes, Boswell, and Finck performed the original autopsy.

Did they examine the throat wound ?
Because they never saw the throat wound and didn't know of its existence until the next day,
which is why their autopsy report referred to the throat wound as "presumably of exit".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/presumably-of-exit.jpg

Now for the HSCA's FPP:
The Forensic Pathology Panel was a group of nine expert pathologists who reviewed the autopsy materials of President John F. Kennedy as part of the investigation conducted by the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). The panel

included Michael Baden, John I. Coe, Joseph H. Davis, George S. Loquvam, Charles S. Petty, Earl Rose, Werner Spitz, Cyril Wecht, and James T. Weston.


The HSCA circus

In the 1970’s the House Select Committee on Assassinations took up the issue of the clean edges of the throat wound. Its Foresic Pathology Panel gave an opinion that defies every known fact regarding bullet exit wounds. You have to read it for yourself:

The President’s tie and shirt offered enough resistance to the bullet to prevent the outward exploding of the tissue of the neck as the bullet exited.
That's why, the Forensic Pathology Panel said, the hole was small. ( 7 HSCA 185 )

There’s only one problem, a “shored” exit wound leaves a scalloped or “punched out abrasion collar”, something this wound did not have.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6637946/

Dr. Perry described it as “roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched out wound, actually, nor was it particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut..” ( 6 H 9 ).
Dr. Perry knew the second he looked at it that it was a wound of entrance.

In addition, the FBI’s spectrographic tests of President’s shirt and tie which showed that no excess copper was in those locations and no copper was found that “could be attributed to projectile fragments.” ( 20 H 2 )
If the shirt and tie were sufficient to shore, buttress or reinforce the skin ( as the FPP said ), there should have been traces of the copper jacket of CE 399 left on the shirt and tie as it had in the back of the shirt and jacket.

But there were none.

No one at Parkland Hospital ever identified the throat wound as a wound of exit.
The autopsists never examined the wound because they didn't know of its existence. They didn't find out until the following day.
As a result, their autopsy report describes the wound as " presumably of exit ".
No bullet track from the back wound to the throat wound was ever established, meaning that there is no physical evidence of a transiting bullet.
The FBI found no traces of copper on either the front of the shirt or the tie. You've argued that the throat wound was a wound of exit and yet, as is typical with you, you provide NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support your claim.

You base your conclusions on the expertise of those who never examined the wound and theorized that the President's tie and shirt was strong enough to hold his skin so taut
that a bullet exiting it at 1900+ feet per second would have created a small, clean wound.
Those are some experts.
No wonder Cyril Wecht dissented.

ROFLMAO
That's a good one.

Now for the REAL story:
www.gil-jesus.com/wound-of-exit

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:31:13 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:28:20 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

You are getting pathetic, Gil. You just can't deal with this inconvenient fact. So here we go:

I'm going out on a limb and assume you know Humes, Boswell, and Finck performed the original autopsy.

Did they examine the throat wound ?

They documented the trail of tissue damage from the entrance wound in the back to the location of the tracheotomy
incision, specifically the bruise on the pleura, the damage to strap muscles, and the damage to the trachea. They also had
an entrance wound, no apparent exit, and no bullet in the body. Since. unlike you, they had the ability to reason, that would
have led them to suspect the tracheotomy had obliterated the exit wound, a fact they confirmed in subsequent conversations
with Perry.

Because they never saw the throat wound and didn't know of its existence until the next day,
which is why their autopsy report referred to the throat wound as "presumably of exit".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/presumably-of-exit.jpg

A correct conclusion confirmed by the HSCA's FPP.

Now for the HSCA's FPP:
The Forensic Pathology Panel was a group of nine expert pathologists who reviewed the autopsy materials of President John F. Kennedy as part of the investigation conducted by the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). The

panel included Michael Baden, John I. Coe, Joseph H. Davis, George S. Loquvam, Charles S. Petty, Earl Rose, Werner Spitz, Cyril Wecht, and James T. Weston.

The HSCA circus

You mean a panel of some of the leading experts in the country in the field of forensic pathology, all of whom knew far more
about the subject than you could ever hope to know.

In the 1970’s the House Select Committee on Assassinations took up the issue of the clean edges of the throat wound. Its Foresic Pathology Panel gave an opinion that defies every known fact regarding bullet exit wounds. You have to read it for

yourself:

Apparently, facts known only to you.

The President’s tie and shirt offered enough resistance to the bullet to prevent the outward exploding of the tissue of the neck as the bullet exited.
That's why, the Forensic Pathology Panel said, the hole was small. ( 7 HSCA 185 )

Why do you dispute that the buttoned shirt collar and tie could support tissue as a bullet passed through all of them.

There’s only one problem, a “shored” exit wound leaves a scalloped or “punched out abrasion collar”, something this wound did not have.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6637946/

Oh, goody. Giltardo reads one paragraph from a medical journal and he that makes him more qualified to render opinions
that a panel of highly qualified and experienced medical examiners. Where in that paragraph does it tell you what such a
wound would look like after having a tracheotomy performed over it.

Dr. Perry described it as “roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched out wound, actually, nor was it particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut..” ( 6 H 9 ).
Dr. Perry knew the second he looked at it that it was a wound of entrance.

Yes, that was his first impression but by his own admission he didn't examine the margins of the wound closely, the wound
was oozing blood, and he could not determine the cause of the wound:

Dr. PERRY - No, sir, there was not. I could not determine whether or how this was inflicted, per se, since it would require tracing the trajectory.

In addition, the FBI’s spectrographic tests of President’s shirt and tie which showed that no excess copper was in those locations and no copper was found that “could be attributed to projectile fragments.” ( 20 H 2 )
If the shirt and tie were sufficient to shore, buttress or reinforce the skin ( as the FPP said ), there should have been traces of the copper jacket of CE 399 left on the shirt and tie as it had in the back of the shirt and jacket.

Is this your opinion or can you seat a person who is actually qualified to render such a judgement?

But there were none.

Cite and expert who says there should have been.

No one at Parkland Hospital ever identified the throat wound as a wound of exit.

No one at Parkland was qualified to make such a judgement. That's why we have specialists in the field of forensic
pathology.

The autopsists never examined the wound because they didn't know of its existence. They didn't find out until the following day.

The following day they confirmed what they suspected at autopsy after the saw the trail of tissue damage emanating from
entrance wound in the back.

As a result, their autopsy report describes the wound as " presumably of exit ".

They were correct.

No bullet track from the back wound to the throat wound was ever established, meaning that there is no physical evidence of a transiting bullet.

Just a coincidence there was damage to the pleura, the strap muscles, and the trachea, all documented by the autopsy.

The FBI found no traces of copper on either the front of the shirt or the tie.

Again I ask you to cite an expert who says there should have been.

Did they find traces of lead? Did they find traces of any metallic element?

You've argued that the throat wound was a wound of exit and yet, as is typical with you, you provide NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support your claim.

You know damn well that is what the autopsy report said and that report is evidence. That finding was also confirmed by
the FPP. But you continue to pretend your opinion should outweigh theirs, even though you have no training and no experience
in this field. What a stooge!!!

You base your conclusions on the expertise of those who never examined the wound and theorized that the President's tie and shirt was strong enough to hold his skin so taut

You never examined the wound either yet you are not shy about spouting your opinion and acting as if yours outweighs theirs.

that a bullet exiting it at 1900+ feet per second would have created a small, clean wound.
Those are some experts.
No wonder Cyril Wecht dissented.

He didn't dissent that the bullet exited from the throat. His dissent was that he believed there was more than one gunman
yet he hasn't based that opinion on the medical evidence. He based that on what he saw in the Z-film which is outside his
area of expertise.

ROFLMAO
That's a good one.

Now for the REAL story:

www.gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 8:46:12 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:31:13 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:28:20 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

You are getting pathetic, Gil. You just can't deal with this inconvenient fact. So here we go:

I'm going out on a limb and assume you know Humes, Boswell, and Finck performed the original autopsy.

Did they examine the throat wound ?

They documented the trail of tissue damage from the entrance wound in the back to the location of the tracheotomy
incision, specifically the bruise on the pleura, the damage to strap muscles, and the damage to the trachea. They also had
an entrance wound, no apparent exit, and no bullet in the body. Since. unlike you, they had the ability to reason, that would
have led them to suspect the tracheotomy had obliterated the exit wound, a fact they confirmed in subsequent conversations
with Perry.

Because they never saw the throat wound and didn't know of its existence until the next day,
which is why their autopsy report referred to the throat wound as "presumably of exit".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/presumably-of-exit.jpg

A correct conclusion confirmed by the HSCA's FPP.

Now for the HSCA's FPP:
The Forensic Pathology Panel was a group of nine expert pathologists who reviewed the autopsy materials of President John F. Kennedy as part of the investigation conducted by the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). The

panel included Michael Baden, John I. Coe, Joseph H. Davis, George S. Loquvam, Charles S. Petty, Earl Rose, Werner Spitz, Cyril Wecht, and James T. Weston.

The HSCA circus

You mean a panel of some of the leading experts in the country in the field of forensic pathology, all of whom knew far more
about the subject than you could ever hope to know.

In the 1970’s the House Select Committee on Assassinations took up the issue of the clean edges of the throat wound. Its Foresic Pathology Panel gave an opinion that defies every known fact regarding bullet exit wounds. You have to read it for

yourself:

Apparently, facts known only to you.

The President’s tie and shirt offered enough resistance to the bullet to prevent the outward exploding of the tissue of the neck as the bullet exited.
That's why, the Forensic Pathology Panel said, the hole was small. ( 7 HSCA 185 )

Why do you dispute that the buttoned shirt collar and tie could support tissue as a bullet passed through all of them.

"If the exit wound is "shored" or abutted by a firm support such as clothing, furniture, or building materials, then the exit wound may take on appearances of an entrance wound, such as a circular defect with an abraded margin. This can occur with
contact, close range, or distant shots. 92% of shored exit wounds in one study had a round or ovoid defect, and all had some degree of abrasion."

https://webpath.med.utah.edu/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINJ.html#1

There’s only one problem, a “shored” exit wound leaves a scalloped or “punched out abrasion collar”, something this wound did not have.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6637946/

Oh, goody. Giltardo reads one paragraph from a medical journal and he that makes him more qualified to render opinions
that a panel of highly qualified and experienced medical examiners. Where in that paragraph does it tell you what such a
wound would look like after having a tracheotomy performed over it.

Dr. Perry described it as “roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched out wound, actually, nor was it particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut..” ( 6 H 9 ).
Dr. Perry knew the second he looked at it that it was a wound of entrance.

Yes, that was his first impression but by his own admission he didn't examine the margins of the wound closely, the wound
was oozing blood, and he could not determine the cause of the wound:
Dr. PERRY - No, sir, there was not. I could not determine whether or how this was inflicted, per se, since it would require tracing the trajectory.

In addition, the FBI’s spectrographic tests of President’s shirt and tie which showed that no excess copper was in those locations and no copper was found that “could be attributed to projectile fragments.” ( 20 H 2 )
If the shirt and tie were sufficient to shore, buttress or reinforce the skin ( as the FPP said ), there should have been traces of the copper jacket of CE 399 left on the shirt and tie as it had in the back of the shirt and jacket.

Is this your opinion or can you seat a person who is actually qualified to render such a judgement?

But there were none.

Cite and expert who says there should have been.

No one at Parkland Hospital ever identified the throat wound as a wound of exit.

No one at Parkland was qualified to make such a judgement. That's why we have specialists in the field of forensic
pathology.

The autopsists never examined the wound because they didn't know of its existence. They didn't find out until the following day.

The following day they confirmed what they suspected at autopsy after the saw the trail of tissue damage emanating from
entrance wound in the back.

As a result, their autopsy report describes the wound as " presumably of exit ".

They were correct.

No bullet track from the back wound to the throat wound was ever established, meaning that there is no physical evidence of a transiting bullet.

Just a coincidence there was damage to the pleura, the strap muscles, and the trachea, all documented by the autopsy.

The FBI found no traces of copper on either the front of the shirt or the tie.

Again I ask you to cite an expert who says there should have been.

Did they find traces of lead? Did they find traces of any metallic element?

"Exit wounds either do not exhibit gunshot residues or far less residues than associated entrance wounds."

https://webpath.med.utah.edu/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINJ.html#1

You've argued that the throat wound was a wound of exit and yet, as is typical with you, you provide NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support your claim.

What PHYSICAL EVIDENCE did Gil provide showing it was a entrance?

You know damn well that is what the autopsy report said and that report is evidence. That finding was also confirmed by
the FPP. But you continue to pretend your opinion should outweigh theirs, even though you have no training and no experience
in this field. What a stooge!!!

You base your conclusions on the expertise of those who never examined the wound and theorized that the President's tie and shirt was strong enough to hold his skin so taut

You never examined the wound either yet you are not shy about spouting your opinion and acting as if yours outweighs theirs.

that a bullet exiting it at 1900+ feet per second would have created a small, clean wound.
Those are some experts.
No wonder Cyril Wecht dissented.

He didn't dissent that the bullet exited from the throat. His dissent was that he believed there was more than one gunman
yet he hasn't based that opinion on the medical evidence. He based that on what he saw in the Z-film which is outside his
area of expertise.

ROFLMAO
That's a good one.

Now for the REAL story:

www.gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 11:27:49 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 10:03:24 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

Yes, it was an entrance wound.

The saga of Dr. Perry is covered here completely. How he was pressured into publicly saying something he knew was not true and what he told other people in private.
Also his initial observations of the wound being one of entrance is corroborated by other doctors.
My research completely destroys the bullshit being pedalled by whacko Corbett.

https://gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry/

Reasons to disbelieve Gil:

1. Gil is claiming Dr. Perry committed perjury(1). If true, anything Perry said is not trustworthy. Gil doesn't understand he is impeaching his own witness by claiming Perry lied in his testimony. If Perry lied, anything he said must be disregarded.

2. Gil doesn't understand the hierarchy. An autopsy is conducted on a dead body to determine the nature of the wounds suffered by the decedent. Emergency room doctors do not do this, they are trying to save the gunshot victim’s life. Emergency room
doctors are not equipped to determine whether gunshot wounds are entrances or exits. Perry’s opinion - and that’s all it was - is valueless. This is why we have pathologists who conduct autopsies. Gil screws up the hierarchy, and puts the views of
one emergency room doctor — who viewed the wound for a second or two at most — over the conclusion of the three autopsists who examined the body, and the HSCA Pathology Panel who collectively had conducted over 100,000 autopsies and examined the
autopsy x-rays and photographs.

3. Gil is discarding the direct testimony of Dr. Perry and based on second and third-hand hearsay claims — not anything Perry admitted — claiming Perry lied. Gil cites a hearsay claim by nurse Audrey Bell - made for the first time more than a third
of a century after the assassination - that the autopsists tried to get Perry to change his opinion. He cites a third-hand hearsay claim [Conspiracy theorist James Gochenaur alleged that Secret Service agent Elmer Moore admitted his job was to get Perry
to change his testimony, and Perry eventually complied. Gil doesn't say when James Gochenaur first went public with this claim. By doing a little digging, I believe Gochenaur first came forward with his claims in 1977 to the HSCA, and fellow Secret
Service agent Floyd Boring (interviewed in 1996) said he knew Moore very well, and “doubted Moore had really said those things”.
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md259.pdf

4. Gil is discarding Perry’s admission in his testimony that he only had a glance at the wound before performing the tracheostomy.

5. Gil is ignoring the legal consequences of perjury. Perry at a minimum could have lost his medical license to practice. He could have even had faced jail time. Yet Gil wants us to believe Perry (and agent Moore!) willingly just followed orders to
commit or submit perjury and cover up a shot from the front *and a conspiracy to kill the President of the United States*.

6. As late as 1996, to the ARRB, Perry was still claiming it was merely his speculation that it was an entrance wound:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/arrbpark.htm
== quote ==
DR. PERRY: Had we known, things would have been different; incomplete information. You learn a great deal, and I learned a great deal in two days. One is never allow yourself to be thrown into speculation with the press, bad mistake. At 34 and naive, I
thought the truth would suffice. That is not the case. Secondly do not speculate about anything public ever. I learned that after operating on Oswald on Sunday when I went down to repeat the press conference again, I went with a typed statement. I
answered no questions, and I didn't get into a bit of trouble. I learned a great deal in two days.
DR. PETERS: Great advice. Put that in for the future guys to read.
== unquote ==

___________

1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/perjurer
== quote ==
A perjurer is a person who has committed the crime of perjury; that is, they have knowingly lied or given misleading testimony–either written or verbal–after swearing an oath to be truthful. According to 18 U.S.C. § 1621, this oath must have been
administered “before a competent tribunal, officer, or person” in the course of any case that authorizes the administration of an oath. This can include courts, grand juries, and Congress, among other agencies. Further, a person can become a perjurer
if they sign a document “under penalty of perjury” stating that all of its contents are “true and correct,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

A perjurer faces criminal consequences. They can be fined, imprisoned for not more than five years, or both. Similar consequences can be faced by someone who convinces another person to become a perjurer. This is called subornation of perjury and is
governed by 18 U.S.C. § 1622.
== unquote ==

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:31:13 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:28:20 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

You are getting pathetic, Gil. You just can't deal with this inconvenient fact. So here we go:

I'm going out on a limb and assume you know Humes, Boswell, and Finck performed the original autopsy.

Did they examine the throat wound ?

Yes.

Because they never saw the throat wound

Untrue, the autopsists examined that wound, but the true nature of that wound was disguised by the fact that Malcolm Perry performed a tracheostomy through the bullet wound. As Perry admitted, time was of the essence in treating the President. He saw the
bullet wound with blood bubbly out, and knowing the President needed an airway, made an incision right through the existing bullet wound. But the doctors saw that wound.

and didn't know of its existence until the next day,

They didn't know the teacher obscured a bullet wound, no.

which is why their autopsy report referred to the throat wound as "presumably of exit".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/presumably-of-exit.jpg

Now for the HSCA's FPP:
The Forensic Pathology Panel was a group of nine expert pathologists who reviewed the autopsy materials of President John F. Kennedy as part of the investigation conducted by the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). The

panel included Michael Baden, John I. Coe, Joseph H. Davis, George S. Loquvam, Charles S. Petty, Earl Rose, Werner Spitz, Cyril Wecht, and James T. Weston.

The HSCA circus

In the 1970’s the House Select Committee on Assassinations took up the issue of the clean edges of the throat wound. Its Foresic Pathology Panel gave an opinion that defies every known fact regarding bullet exit wounds. You have to read it for

yourself:

The President’s tie and shirt offered enough resistance to the bullet to prevent the outward exploding of the tissue of the neck as the bullet exited.
That's why, the Forensic Pathology Panel said, the hole was small. ( 7 HSCA 185 )

There’s only one problem, a “shored” exit wound leaves a scalloped or “punched out abrasion collar”, something this wound did not have.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6637946/

Dr. Perry described it as “roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched out wound, actually, nor was it particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut..” ( 6 H 9 ).
Dr. Perry knew the second he looked at it that it was a wound of entrance.

Yes, he reached that *opinion*. It was his *opinion* when interviewed that day.

However, he is not qualified to render said opinion, he wasn't the autopsist, nor did he attend the autopsy. Nor did he see the x-rays and photographs taken at the autopsy before reaching his *opinion*. Did Perry ever conduct an autopsy? He is not an
expert witness on this matter. The autopsists and HSCA Pathology Panel are the experts.

But you're treating Perry as both an unimpeachable expert witness and a perjuror whose testimony shouldn't be trusted. You need to make up your mind.

As Humes only learned about the bullet wound in the front of the neck in a phone call to Perry, Perry only learned about the bullet wound in the President’s upper back in that same phone call. Both were working from incomplete information.

In addition, the FBI’s spectrographic tests of President’s shirt and tie which showed that no excess copper was in those locations and no copper was found that “could be attributed to projectile fragments.” ( 20 H 2 )
If the shirt and tie were sufficient to shore, buttress or reinforce the skin ( as the FPP said ), there should have been traces of the copper jacket of CE 399 left on the shirt and tie as it had in the back of the shirt and jacket.

But there were none.

No one at Parkland Hospital ever identified the throat wound as a wound of exit.
The autopsists never examined the wound because they didn't know of its existence. They didn't find out until the following day.
As a result, their autopsy report describes the wound as " presumably of exit ".
No bullet track from the back wound to the throat wound was ever established, meaning that there is no physical evidence of a transiting bullet.
The FBI found no traces of copper on either the front of the shirt or the tie.
You've argued that the throat wound was a wound of exit and yet, as is typical with you, you provide NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support your claim.

You base your conclusions on the expertise of those who never examined the wound and theorized that the President's tie and shirt was strong enough to hold his skin so taut
that a bullet exiting it at 1900+ feet per second would have created a small, clean wound.
Those are some experts.
No wonder Cyril Wecht dissented.

ROFLMAO
That's a good one.

Now for the REAL story:

www.gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 12:45:58 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:31:13 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:28:20 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

You are getting pathetic, Gil. You just can't deal with this inconvenient fact. So here we go:

I'm going out on a limb and assume you know Humes, Boswell, and Finck performed the original autopsy.

Did they examine the throat wound ?

Yes.

Bullshit. They examined the tracheostomy. They never saw a bullet wound. The tracheostomy wasn't a wound, it was a medical procedure.

"AS A RESULT OF THESE TELEPHONE CALLS, Dr. Humes concluded that the missile that had entered the upper back had transversed the body and exited in the anterior portion of the neck, although HE HAD NOT OBSERVED THE REMAINS OF ANY SUCH HOLE DURING HIS
EXAMINATION OF THE BODY". ( 7 HSCA 16 )
He didn't have the phone call with Perry until the morning of Saturday, November 23rd, long after the body had left. ( 2 H 362 )

Because they never saw the throat wound

Untrue, the autopsists examined that wound, but the true nature of that wound was disguised by the fact that Malcolm Perry performed a tracheostomy through the bullet wound. As Perry admitted, time was of the essence in treating the President. He saw

the bullet wound with blood bubbly out, and knowing the President needed an airway, made an incision right through the existing bullet wound. But the doctors saw that wound.

Already dealt with above.

Dr. Perry knew the second he looked at it that it was a wound of entrance.

Yes, he reached that *opinion*. It was his *opinion* when interviewed that day.

However, he is not qualified to render said opinion, he wasn't the autopsist, nor did he attend the autopsy. Nor did he see the x-rays and photographs taken at the autopsy before reaching his *opinion*. Did Perry ever conduct an autopsy? He is not an

expert witness on this matter. The autopsists and HSCA Pathology Panel are the experts.

Dr. Perry never saw an entrance wound before ?
What's your source for that ?
And your expert autopsists never saw the bullet wound in the throat.
Some experts.

But you're treating Perry as both an unimpeachable expert witness and a perjuror whose testimony shouldn't be trusted. You need to make up your mind.

No, I'm treating Dr. Perry as a man with experience in gunshot wounds who knew an entrance wound when he saw one and who was forced by the Secret Service to lie about what he saw.
I'm treating Dr. Perry's observation as reliable because it is corroborated by his colleagues in the ER.
You, on the other hand, have produced no witnesses in the ER who saw the wound prior to the tracheostomy and described the wound as a wound of exit.

As Humes only learned about the bullet wound in the front of the neck in a phone call to Perry,

And yet, according to you, they examined the throat wound.
Some experts.
If they never saw the bullet wound in the neck, and they never measured it to see if it was larger than the entrance wound in the back, how did they come to the conclusion that it was a wound of exit ?

Dr. Perry's saga is all dealt with here and it blows away your argument entirely:
www.gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 5:05:03 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 12:45:58 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:31:13 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:28:20 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

You are getting pathetic, Gil. You just can't deal with this inconvenient fact. So here we go:

I'm going out on a limb and assume you know Humes, Boswell, and Finck performed the original autopsy.

Did they examine the throat wound ?

Yes.

Bullshit. They examined the tracheostomy. They never saw a bullet wound. The tracheostomy wasn't a wound, it was a medical procedure.

"AS A RESULT OF THESE TELEPHONE CALLS, Dr. Humes concluded that the missile that had entered the upper back had transversed the body and exited in the anterior portion of the neck, although HE HAD NOT OBSERVED THE REMAINS OF ANY SUCH HOLE DURING HIS

EXAMINATION OF THE BODY". ( 7 HSCA 16 )

He didn't have the phone call with Perry until the morning of Saturday, November 23rd, long after the body had left. ( 2 H 362 )

Why does it matter when Humes had Perry confirm the tracheotomy had been performed over the exit wound?

Because they never saw the throat wound

Untrue, the autopsists examined that wound, but the true nature of that wound was disguised by the fact that Malcolm Perry performed a tracheostomy through the bullet wound. As Perry admitted, time was of the essence in treating the President. He saw

the bullet wound with blood bubbly out, and knowing the President needed an airway, made an incision right through the existing bullet wound. But the doctors saw that wound.

Already dealt with above.

The did not see the exit wound in its original state. By determining where the tissue damage had occurred they had prima
fascia evidence that the bullet had traveled toward where the tracheotomy incision had been made. That led them to
suspect the bullet had exited the throat and the tracheotomy had disguised the exit wound. That would be the reason for the
call to Perry.

Dr. Perry knew the second he looked at it that it was a wound of entrance.

Yes, he reached that *opinion*. It was his *opinion* when interviewed that day.

However, he is not qualified to render said opinion, he wasn't the autopsist, nor did he attend the autopsy. Nor did he see the x-rays and photographs taken at the autopsy before reaching his *opinion*. Did Perry ever conduct an autopsy? He is not an

expert witness on this matter. The autopsists and HSCA Pathology Panel are the experts.

Dr. Perry never saw an entrance wound before ?
What's your source for that ?
And your expert autopsists never saw the bullet wound in the throat.
Some experts.

I'm sure Perry saw entrance wounds before. What he didn't have was training to determine whether a wound is an entrance
or an exit. You don't make that determination by the size and shape of the wound because a FMJ bullet doesn't deform when
passing through soft tissue and will make a small exit wound, similar in size and shape to an entrance wound.

But you're treating Perry as both an unimpeachable expert witness and a perjuror whose testimony shouldn't be trusted. You need to make up your mind.

No, I'm treating Dr. Perry as a man with experience in gunshot wounds who knew an entrance wound when he saw one and who was forced by the Secret Service to lie about what he saw.

What is your evidence that the Secret Service forced Perry to lie about what he saw?

I'm treating Dr. Perry's observation as reliable because it is corroborated by his colleagues in the ER.

Which of those colleagues was trained in forensic pathology. There is a reason that field requires special training. Normal
medical school training does not provide the knowledge necessary to determine exit wounds from entrance wounds. There
is a reason that courts have trained forensic pathologists testify in court about the nature of gunshot wounds. When I was a
juror in a gunshot murder case, a forensic pathologist began his testimony by briefly reciting his credentials. He told us about
the training he had received and an approximate number of times he had testified in court.
 

You, on the other hand, have produced no witnesses in the ER who saw the wound prior to the tracheostomy and described the wound as a wound of exit.

Why would we? None of them had the training to determine such a thing.

As Humes only learned about the bullet wound in the front of the neck in a phone call to Perry,

And yet, according to you, they examined the throat wound.
Some experts.
If they never saw the bullet wound in the neck, and they never measured it to see if it was larger than the entrance wound in the back, how did they come to the conclusion that it was a wound of exit ?

By connecting the dots. The saw where the bullet entered and saw the damage to the pleura, the strap muscles, and the
trachea. The latter two had been noticed by Perry after he made the incision. He also noticed the presence of free blood
in the area of the lungs and pleura.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe it in detail, the procedures which were followed in the efforts to save the President's life?
Dr. PERRY - All right. Well, to regress, then, at the time I began the tracheotomy, I made an incision right through the wound which was present in the neck in order to gain complete control of any injury in the underlying trachea.
I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried it down to the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying the thyroid and the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral aspect of the trachea at the level of the
external wound. The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea. At this point, I recall, Dr. Jones right on my left was placing a catheter into a vein
in the-left arm because he handed me a necessary instrument which I needed in the performance of the procedure.
The wound in the trachea was then enlarged to admit a cuffed tracheotomy tube to support respiration. I noted that there was free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum.
Although I saw no injury to the lung or to the pleural space, the presence of this free blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound of the right hemithorax,

Dr. Perry's saga is all dealt with here and it blows away your argument entirely:
www.gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry

That webpage blows up in your face. It is based on your uneducated layman's opinion about a subject that requires
extensive training and experience to become an expert in. The experts in the field of forensic pathology have all concluded
that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited his throat. You want us to ignore them and believe you. Nothing could be more
ludicrous.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:13:07 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

That webpage blows up in your face. It is based on your uneducated layman's opinion about a subject that requires
extensive training and experience to become an expert in. The experts in the field of forensic pathology have all concluded
that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited his throat. You want us to ignore them and believe you. Nothing could be more
ludicrous.

ROFLMAO
What a fucking asshole.

That page has witness videos, documentation, testimony and official records. The only thing it blows up is your ass, sideways.

HERE'S THE WEBPAGE THAT HAS THE LONE NUTTERS LOSING THEIR SHIT: https://gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry/

Enjoy your day.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:25:07 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:13:07 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

That webpage blows up in your face. It is based on your uneducated layman's opinion about a subject that requires
extensive training and experience to become an expert in. The experts in the field of forensic pathology have all concluded
that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited his throat. You want us to ignore them and believe you. Nothing could be more
ludicrous.

ROFLMAO
What a fucking asshole.

That page has witness videos, documentation, testimony and official records. The only thing it blows up is your ass, sideways.

HERE'S THE WEBPAGE THAT HAS THE LONE NUTTERS LOSING THEIR SHIT: https://gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry/

Enjoy your day.

You continue to use diversion rather than explain why anybody should give more weight to your opinion about what the
medical evidence indicates over the unanimous opinion of men who saw far more of the medical evidence than you, have
far more training in the field of forensic pathology than you, and far more experience in the field of forensic pathology than you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:34:01 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:25:07 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:13:07 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

That webpage blows up in your face. It is based on your uneducated layman's opinion about a subject that requires
extensive training and experience to become an expert in. The experts in the field of forensic pathology have all concluded
that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited his throat. You want us to ignore them and believe you. Nothing could be more
ludicrous.

ROFLMAO
What a fucking asshole.

That page has witness videos, documentation, testimony and official records.
The only thing it blows up is your ass, sideways.

HERE'S THE WEBPAGE THAT HAS THE LONE NUTTERS LOSING THEIR SHIT: https://gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry/

Enjoy your day.

You continue to use diversion rather than explain why anybody should give more weight to your opinion about what the
medical evidence indicates over the unanimous opinion of men who saw far more of the medical evidence than you, have
far more training in the field of forensic pathology than you, and far more experience in the field of forensic pathology than you.

Gil continues to Dunning-Kruger his way through life.

He knows more about forensics than actual forensic experts.

He knows more about the law than actual lawyers.

He knows more about processing evidence than actual police officers.

Yet after decades of studying this case, he hasn`t a clue what occurred at 10th and Patton.

If I studied a historical event, say D-Day for decades, I would expect I could tell you what forces landed on which beach, who was leading those forces, rough idea of casualties, what ships transported the troops, just about everything. But with Gil,
the opposite occurs, the more he studies, the less he knows. Like Don, he can`t even figure out what floor the shots were fired from, one of the most basic aspects of the case.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 05:34:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecorbett4@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:25:07?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:13:07?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

That webpage blows up in your face. It is based on your uneducated layman's opinion about a subject that requires
extensive training and experience to become an expert in. The experts in the field of forensic pathology have all concluded
that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited his throat. You want us to ignore them and believe you. Nothing could be more
ludicrous.

ROFLMAO
What a fucking asshole.

That page has witness videos, documentation, testimony and official records. >> The only thing it blows up is your ass, sideways.

HERE'S THE WEBPAGE THAT HAS THE LONE NUTTERS LOSING THEIR SHIT:
https://gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry/

Enjoy your day.

You continue to use diversion...

You continue to lie, obfuscate, and toss logical fallacies.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 21:45:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 17:46:10 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecorbett4@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:31:13?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:28:20?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:24:11?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

You are getting pathetic, Gil. You just can't deal with this inconvenient fact. So here we go:

I'm going out on a limb and assume you know Humes, Boswell, and Finck performed the original autopsy.

Did they examine the throat wound ?

They documented the trail of tissue damage from the entrance wound in the back to the location of the tracheotomy
incision...

Answering a question with a logical fallacy loses.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 08:13:20 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 18:12:38 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 18:53:40 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

Huckster DARES to comment on medical issues when he's run like a
coward from his own pronouncements:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 15:24:09 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecorbett4@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 5:33:11?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 1:56:23?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

You completely ignored the argument the part about every forensic examiner who has seen the medical evidence agrees
that the throat wound was an exit. What does your website have to say about that. Or does your website ignore that
inconvenient fact as well. I have no doubt you will never address this.

NAME THEM.

I'm getting pathetic...

Indeed. You couldn't name them...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 05:13:05 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecorbett4@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 5:05:03?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 12:45:58?AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote: >>> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:31:13?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:28:20?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:24:11?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote: >>>>>> You are getting pathetic, Gil. You just can't deal with this inconvenient fact. So here we go:

I'm going out on a limb and assume you know Humes, Boswell, and Finck performed the original autopsy.

Did they examine the throat wound ?

Yes.

Bullshit. They examined the tracheostomy. They never saw a bullet wound. The tracheostomy wasn't a wound, it was a medical procedure.

"AS A RESULT OF THESE TELEPHONE CALLS, Dr. Humes concluded that the missile that had entered the upper back had transversed the body and exited in the anterior portion of the neck, although HE HAD NOT OBSERVED THE REMAINS OF ANY SUCH HOLE DURING HIS

EXAMINATION OF THE BODY". ( 7 HSCA 16 )

He didn't have the phone call with Perry until the morning of Saturday, November 23rd, long after the body had left. ( 2 H 362 )

Why does it matter ...

Because the truth is the truth.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 10:56:21 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecorbett4@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 11:27:49?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 10:03:24?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote: >>> Yes, it was an entrance wound.
The saga of Dr. Perry is covered here completely. How he was pressured into publicly saying something he knew was not true and what he told other people in private.
Also his initial observations of the wound being one of entrance is corroborated by other doctors.
My research completely destroys the bullshit being pedalled by whacko Corbett.

You completely ignored...

Ironic.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:27:47 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 10:03:24?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

Yes, it was an entrance wound.

The saga of Dr. Perry is covered here completely. How he was pressured into publicly saying something he knew was not true and what he told other people in private.
Also his initial observations of the wound being one of entrance is corroborated by other doctors.
My research completely destroys the bullshit being pedalled by whacko Corbett.

Of COURSE it does... truth does that to falsehoods...

https://gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 21:26:24 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 11:27:49?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 10:03:24?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote: >> > Yes, it was an entrance wound.
The saga of Dr. Perry is covered here completely. How he was pressured into publicly saying something he knew was not true and what he told other people in private.
Also his initial observations of the wound being one of entrance is corroborated by other doctors.
My research completely destroys the bullshit being pedalled by whacko Corbett.

https://gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry/

Reasons to disbelieve Gil:

Reasons to believe Huckster's a coward:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)