From: jecorbett4@gmail.com   
      
   On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 11:57:15 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 11:08:01 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:    
   > > Why is it you can't name a single forensic medical examiner who believes   
   the    
   > > medical evidence indicates JFK was struck by a bullet from the front or   
   the    
   > > side?   
   > Because no forensic medical examiner saw the wound before the tracheostomy   
   was done.    
      
   Neither the original autopsy team nor the FPP panel got to see the wound   
   before the tracheostomy incision was made and   
   they were able to unanimously conclude that the bullet exited from the throat.   
   Why do you suppose that is, Giltardo? Why do   
   you assume that if they had seen the wound before it was cut into, they would   
   have concluded it was an entrance wound?   
   >    
   > Now it's my turn:    
   >    
   > 1. Name one person who saw the throat wound BEFORE the tracheostomy was done   
   and described it conclusively as an exit wound.    
      
   No qualified medical examiner saw the wound before the incision was made.   
   There are other ways to determine that was a    
   wound of exit. They saw the wound in the back which was conclusively an   
   entrance wound. They saw the trail of tissue with   
   a contusion of the pleura and the damage to strap muscles and the trachea.   
   This trail led from the entrance wound to the   
   tracheotomy incision. One would have to be a moron to know all that and not   
   figure out the bullet exited from the throat.    
   >    
   > 2. Tells us why the Dallas doctors were not qualified to identify an   
   entrance wound.   
      
   Because that is not what they were trained to do. Forensic pathology is a   
   specific discipline which requires specific training   
   to understand how entrance wounds and exit wounds differ. One cannot determine   
   whether a bullet wound is an entrance or   
   exit simply looking at the size and shape of the wound. A small round hole can   
   be an entrance or an exit. Perry made the   
   erroneous assumption was an entrance wound simply by observing the size and   
   shape. He later acknowledged that it could   
   have been either and by his own admission lacked the qualifications to make   
   that determination.   
      
   It is simply illogical to believe that both the back and throat wound could   
   both have been entrances because there were no   
   other exit wound and no bullets in the body. That is an impossibility. One of   
   the wounds was an entrance and one was an   
   exit and both the original the original autopsy team and the review panel   
   unanimously concluded the back wound was the   
   entrance. That kind of narrows it down.   
      
   How are you coming with figuring out what my real name is?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)