[mlo]

Anyway, what you're saying is that the bullet from behind started his head going down, then the n.m. reaction started the head going back. That would have to be one heck of a n.m. reaction to abruptly overcome the downward momemtum.

Not really. The bullet pushed the head forward and down for an instant, then penetrated. It does not impart massive momentum to the body. I think the talk about a "neuromuscular reaction" makes it seem more mysterious than it is. Just keep in mind that you aren't talking about an inanimate object here. It was a living body. He fell back into the seat. That's all.

And a lot of others have concluded otherwise. The autopsy was fraught with errors and tons of weird discrepencies.

Every single medical panel that has been able to review the autopsy evidence has come to the same conclusion. Every one. Only a few of the photos have been leaked, so only those panels have had access to all the information.

The HSCA concluded two snipers, remember. I know this was based of the accoustic evidence, but still, it shows that experts can disagree.

The disagreement wasn't over the medical evidence. The HSCA accepted the acoustics but was forced to postulate a second sniper whose shot missed entirely. That's because no other evidence supported a shot from the grassy knoll.

Is this true? Even the police tape recorded four "shot-like" sounds...

Yes, it is true that most witnesses reported three shots, and most reported they came from the TSBD. Later I'll look up the cite for you. There are no shots on the police recording.

True, but that's a little misleading. There was a lot of bushes and stuff to hide behind, and everyone had his eyes on the President at the time.

It isn't misleading at all. If anyone had fired a shot from the grassy knoll there would be untold numbers of people who couldn't have missed it. In fact, not one person reported a shot from the grassy knoll that day.

Ther may not be ballistic evidence, but there *is* plenty of "medical evidence" that raises, at least, tons of suspicion.

Not really. Feel free to cite it if you think so.

[Flashlight]

...[I said:] There may not be ballistic evidence, but there *is* plenty of "medical evidence" that raises, at least, tons of suspicion....

[you replied:] Not really. Feel free to cite it if you think so...

David Lifton interviewed tons of people involved with the autopsy. He recorded the interviews and fully documents everything. His book "Best Evidence" goes into all the details. Here's an example (from his testimony to Cnogress):

Turning now to the report of the two agents who attended the autopsy, James Sibert and Francis O'Neill. I interviewed Sibert in early November 1966 questioning him about the statement in his FBI report in which he quotes the head pathologist at Bethesda autopsy, Commander Humes, is saying it was "apparent" that when the President's body had been put on the table there had been "surgery of the head area namely in the top of the skull." Sibert said the statement was true.

- - end of excerpt.

Even if there's some perfectly normal explanation for "surgery at the top of the skull" before the autopsy, Lifton's book is filled with details of the weirdness, suspicious activities, conflicting statements, and so on concerning the autopsy and the events before and after.

( http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index38.htm is a link to his Congressional testimony concerning Assassination records.

[Tall_Texan]

I've read and watched many things about the assassination, both pro-conspiracy (Crossfire, Conspiracy, many others) and anti-conspiracy (Case Closed, Conspiracy of One, etc.). I've walked all over Dealey Plaza and taken photos from certain vantage points. I have my own opinions but no hard conclusions as to who was involved or why other than the principle facts that aren't in question.

What usually happens when anti-conspiracy folks take any evidence presented them that supports a conspiracy, they will tell you that the source is a publicity-seeker, a known liar, mentally unstable, etc whose evidence has been altered, faked or manufactured.

What usually happens when pro-conspiracy folks take any evidence presented them that refutes a conspiracy, they will tell you that the source is a government dupe, uniformed or part of the conspiracy whose evidence has been altered, faked or manufactured.

So neither side has a great deal of credibility with me and I've seen several "facts", even in the first 30 posts, that are demonstrably false. I'm prepared to accept nearly any conclusion proffered so far but I need to be proven it is true.

I am convinced that Oswald was not innocent. Whether he was the actual gunmen or not or whether there were shooters at the Knoll or elsewhere remain open to various theories but Oswald's actions on the day prior to and the day of the assassination force me to conclude he was involved.

I'm afraid there has been so much misrepresentation and distortion on both sides that we'll unlikely find a conclusion that will be satisfactory.