> wrote:

> >On Friday, October 19, 2012 7:36:13 PM UTC-7, John Reagor King wrote:

> >> In article <3afaa61b-9204-4ae3-875a-8b25b2938c1a@googlegroups.com>,

> >It appears you have much to learn.

> >From patspeer.com, chapter 11.

> >Despite the problems presented by Connally's wounds discussed above, the

> >Warren Commission, in its report, cited the size of Connally's back wound

> >as possible evidence the bullet had first struck Kennedy. This was
> >clearly

> >spin, however. On page 92, the report claims "Because of the small size

> >and clean-cut edges of the wound on the Governor's back, Dr. Robert Shaw

> >concluded that it was an entry wound." Then, on page 109 it claimed "the

> >large wound on the Governor's back would be explained by a bullet which

> >was yawing, although that type of wound might also be accounted for by a

> >tangential striking." The report failed to note that the expert stating

> >that the back wound was large and that the bullet may have been yawing,

> >Dr. Olivier, did so under the impression the back wound was 3cm in its

> >largest dimension, and that the doctor claiming the back wound was small

> >and a tangential strike, Dr. Shaw, testified that this 3cm measure was
> >not

> >the actual measurement of the wound, but the measurement made after he'd

> >cut away the damaged skin along its edge.

> >By the time of the HSCA, unfortunately, the Warren Commission's use of
> >the

> >back wound size as possible evidence had ballooned into its use as

> >conclusive evidence. The HSCA's Dr. Baden, almost certainly under the

> >influence of a November 1974 article by Dr. Lattimer in Medical Times,

> >cited the shape of Connally's back wound as clear-cut evidence for the

> >single-bullet theory. In his testimony before the committee, Dr. Baden

> >testified that "the panel concluded, based on the enlarged nature of the

> >entrance perforation in the Governor's back, that the bullet was wobbling

> >when it struck him and had to have struck something before striking the

> >Governor." The HSCA's Final Assassinations Report further relates that

> >when concluding that Kennedy's and Connally's wounds were "consistent
> >with

> >the possibility that one bullet entered the upper right back of President

> >Kennedy, and, after emerging from the front of the neck, caused all the

> >Governor's wounds...A factor that influenced the panel significantly was

> >the ovoid shape of the wound in the Governor's back, indicating that the

> >bullet had begun to tumble or yaw before entering" because "An ovoid
> >wound

> >is characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or

> >glanced off an intervening object."

> >The problem with this is that Dr. Baden misled the Committee about the

> >significance of this ovoid wound. As previously mentioned, and as

> >discussed in Milicent Cranor's excellent online article, Trajectory of a

> >Lie, Dr. Robert Shaw, Governor Connally's doctor, testified before the

> >Warren Commission in 1964 that Connally's back wound was about 1.5 x 5/8

> >centimeters (4H104), but that he later removed the damaged skin around

> >this entrance and enlarged it to about 3 cm (6H188). By 1974, Dr.

> >Lattimer, noticing that 3 cm was the same size as a 6.5 mm

> >Mannlicher/Carcano bullet traveling sideways, seized upon this second

> >measurement and started claiming in his articles that this was the actual

> >size of the wound. Not surprisingly, he asserted that the size of

> >Connally's wound demonstrated the bullet was traveling sideways and not

> >merely at an angle to Connally's back, as testified to by Shaw. As

> >demonstrated by Cranor, Lattimer let out a big smelly lie in the process.

> The HSCA FPP knew perfectly well that the wound was 1.5 cm. on its

> longest dimension.

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=82&...

> This sort of thing isn't worthy of you.  You are not Mark Lane.