Here it is:

*******************************************************
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? *******************************************************

When believers lie about the evidence, then REPEATEDLY refuse to quote
it, that pretty much tells the thoughtful reader all he needs to know.

Huckster posted that Chickenshit spoke for him... yet the MOMENT he's challenged to defend what Chickenshit said, he refused.

The "A.B.C.D" paragraph described the lacerations that BEGAN at the
large wound in the back of JFK's head.

The sentence that I couldn't get a single believer to quote was this:

"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"

This makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the following paragraphs do *NOT*
describe the location of the wound, as *THIS* part starts at the EDGE
of the large wound. (Described previously as:

"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

Amusingly, it's this one paragraph that most frightens believers...
Von Penis flat denied it.

The prosectors *NEVER* dissected the throat wound, Chickenshit simply
lied, and Huckster knew it - but can't slight a fellow believer.

Q: On the night of the 22nd of November you did have occasion to see
the wound in the area of the throat?
A: On the skin?
Q: Yes.
A: No, I examined the surgical incision, but I don't recall seeing the
small wound de- scribed by the Dallas surgeons. It was part of the
surgical incision and I didn't see it.
Q: You saw the incision.
A: In the front of the neck, definitely.
Q: You were puzzled by what you found in the back, is that right?
A: I was not puzzled by what I found in the back, I was puzzled by
having a definite entry in the back, a bruise in the plural region,
that is the region of the cavity of the chest, which was bruised,
between the entry in the back and the exit in the front, and the three
of us, the prosectors, we saw that bruise, and the following day
knowing that a small wound had been seen in the front of the neck that
made very much sense to me, an entry in the back, a wound in the front
and a bruise in between due to the passage of that bullet.
Q: On the night you had the President's body on the autopsy table, IF
YOU HAD DISSECTED THAT PARTICULAR AREA would you not have been able to ascertain it was a through-and-through gunshot wound?
A: I could have, but it is a difficult question to answer for the
reason you deal with many anatomical structures. Tissues are very
tight, firm.

And:

Q: I believe you told Mr. Dymond, Colonel, the reason you did not
dissect the track of the bullet through the throat was because you did
not want to mutilate the body of the President. Is that correct?
A: I did not consider this dissection --
Q: Did you or did you not tell Mr. Dymond a few moments ago that you
did not dissect the track of the President's throat because of the
mutilation of the body that would result?
A: Yes, I did say that.
Q: And you also told me yesterday you were told not to go into the
throat area?
A: Yes, I don't remember the details about this, who said what.
Q: You were told?
A: From what I remember.
Q: And you did not do it?
A: We did not remove the organs of the neck, obviously.

There's much more than this - but it's CRYSTAL CLEAR that the throat
wound was never dissected, as Chickenshit claimed, and Huckster
covered up.

Huckster is knowledgeable enough on the evidence to instantly tell
that Chickenshit flat lied, but believers rarely contradict other
believers.

So Huckster proved himself to be a coward, and a liar.

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