[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:I am not threatening anything - that is an odd choice or word....

You need to be mindful that there is a distinct difference between opinion and deliberately misleading some one!

I disagree with you on the neck wound - IMO there is zero evidence that the wound was an entry. There is speculation based on Perry's initial interpretation of the wound looking like an entry.

In other words, he said it was an entry wound, and this is not evidence that it was an entry wound.

It looked like an entry wound, and this is not evidence that it was an entry wound.

The prosectors were completely unable to track any path through the body, and this is not evidence that it was a throat wound.

The shrapnel wounds in the face aren't evidence of a frontal shot either, right?

Patrick C Wrote:Common sense should tell us all that the MC projectile that struck JFK in the back would exit if id did not strike the spine - which it did not. It enters at approx 2000 ft per second.

Then simply provide the evidence for your speculation...

But you won't. You can't.

Patrick C Wrote:Whether or not it was CE399 is another matter, but to suggest that the neck wound was an entry is clutching at straws. I would go as far as saying it is preposterous.

Then all you need to do is support that statement with evidence. I predict that you won't...

I predict you'll offer speculation rather than evidence...

Patrick C Wrote:I accept that there could have been a shrapnel wound to JFK's face - but it could have been from a head shot fragment causing a glass splinter to fly back.

I've often pointed out that believers are forced by their faith to believe in the silliest of things.

Tell us Patrick, in a hypothetical case - if you KNEW that facial wounds were caused by glass to a person sitting in the back of a limo - what would be the most likely direction of a bullet striking the windshield to cause such wounds?

Patrick C Wrote:I think it far more likely that there was no such wound to the face and that the mortician was simply wrong. I think it would have drawn attention form other persons attending the autopsy and it would have been duly noted in the report. It was not......

You're entitled to your own opinions... you're not entitled to your own evidence...