[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:The wound could have been either entry or exit or words to that effect."

Ben Holmes Wrote:This was AFTER the massive intimidation of the Parkland doctors... The EARLIEST opinion was that the throat wound was an entry wound. Henry Sienzant even went so far as to blatantly lie on this point - claiming that they'd stated it could have been either an entry or exit at the Parkland Press Conference.

But this simply isn't true.

The Parkland doctors were "convinced" that their opinion was incorrect on the basis of an Autopsy Report THAT NEVER DISSECTED OR EVEN KNEW ABOUT the throat wound during the autopsy.

That's a fact.

One that you cannot get around.

Perry stated later that he regretted making what was after all a rash judgement...you can't be certain of that wound being an entry in the trauma room situation. Any reliable surgeon would tell you that.

Again, he said this AFTER the intimidation got him to 'change' his mind.

Patrick C Wrote:Perry was not bullied. There was no frontal entry to be bullied about.

And yet, we have witness statements EXACTLY to that effect.

Patrick C Wrote:So the neck wound as an entry for me is a NON STARTER....always has been. It is truly a big a red herring as the Phantom GK Gunman.......

Why on earth you guys can't position some sensible simple rear sourced shot scenario is utterly astonishing.

The simple truth is still true today as it was on 11/22/63 - on that day - EVERY medical witness who had an opinion based on what they saw stated that the throat wound was an entry.

That's STILL A FACT - and you've done nothing to refute it.

Why you find it amazing that critics recognize and accept the evidence for a frontal shot is simply your dogmatism at work, nothing more...