Question for Gil

[Bud]

Officer JD Tippit was shot to death in the afternoon of November 22nd, 1963 in Oak Cliff. In as much detail as you can, explain this event, what happened?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 02:41:03 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[JE Corbett]

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? Notice I am asking for medical evidence. Not an interpretation of the
Z-film.

[Gil Jesus]

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.

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.

2. Tells us why the Dallas doctors were not qualified to identify an entrance wound.

[JE Corbett]

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?

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
< his usual comments and insults which were automatically deleted >

Over 40 witnesses told the HSCA that they DID see a wound at the back of the head.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/40-witnesses.png

Name the witnesses who said there was no wound at the back of the head.

The autopsy report describes, "a large irregular defect" that extends, "somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions". ( 16 H 980 )
Where is the "occipital region" of the skull located ?

And where is the "large irregular defect" in that occipital region depicted in this autopsy photo ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg

Name one person who saw the throat wound BEFORE the tracheostomy was done and described it conclusively as an exit wound.

Tells us why the Dallas doctors were not qualified to identify an entrance wound.

Will you answer these questions or will you continue to run from them ?

[JE Corbett]

On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 4:10:08 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>
> And where is the "large irregular defect" in that occipital region depicted in this autopsy photo ?

"If you answer questions with questions....you're a Lone Nutter." ------- Giltardo

[Ben Holmes]

Why is it that you can't accept the Autopsy Report?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 13:19:08 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>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 ...

ROTFLMAO!!!

>> 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.

Cite for that claim.

(But you won't.)

>> 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.

Cite for their training. *PROVE* what you just spouted.

(But you won't.)

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 05:29:42 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 4:10:08?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 4:19:10?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>
>> And where is the "large irregular defect" in that occipital region depicted in this autopsy photo ?
>
>"If you answer questions with questions....you're a Lone Nutter." ------- Giltardo

If you're a coward and a liar, you're a Lone Nutter - Ben.