And http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Ballistics_and_head_wounds.html
From your link
It is interesting to note that although Dr. Olivier fired bullets into 10 skulls, he only cited one skull as having an exit wound that was at all similar in location and size to the large exit wound described by the autopsy doctors.
It is interesting to note that the test cited in an attempt to discredit the autopsy confirmed the plausibility of one conclusion of the autopsy report.
As a matter of fact, most of the resulting exit wounds were in the frontal area--they shattered bones in the forehead area (Menninger 84). Bear in mind, too, that the Commission's exit wound was different from the one later proposed by the HSCA, and from the one described in detail by the Dallas doctors and nurses who treated the President at Parkland Hospital immediately after the shooting. The Parkland doctors and nurses reported seeing a large wound in the right rear part of the head, strongly indicating a shot from the front. And, thanks in part to newly released HSCA interview files, we now know that witness after witness at the autopsy told Committee investigators that the large wound was in back of the head.
I'll assume that this is the most compelling evidence you have and that you plan on defending this, instead of walking way as you have on other occasions. Without even going into the accuracy of the reporting here.
Your assignment, Promunkin, whether or not you choose to accept it is to,
(1)tell us why the opinions presented here are sufficiently divergent as to rule out the conclusion that the bullet was fired from the SBD. Such as why the opinions of emergency room doctors and nurses should outweigh that of the pathologist. Include in your analysis how those opinions could have been well formed by a group of people who were focused on providing emergency treatment. Also please include the opinions of the same people on the locations of the entry and exit wounds of the back shot. Since that will show if they can be used to support your theory that both shots came from the front. If such opnions are nto available state the extent of your research.
(2)tell us why the conclusions of the HSCA report a decade and a half later should be taken to be of such importance relative to the autopsy report that it shows the autopsy to be fraudulent while drawing the same conclusion as the WC. Why do you rely on the HSCA report in one regard while dismissing its conclusion?
