Your post is a microcosm of the problems with actually believing a conspiracy theory. Before I proceed let me say this: you have my empathy as far as WANTING a sufficient cause for the President's killing. I'm convinced most of the conspiracy thinking is undergirded by that motive - a sense of propotion. Nevertheless, let me resopnd to a number of points.
Your post is a microcosm of much of what is wrong with the conspiracy theory.
Recorded press conference with emergency room doctors at Parkland the day of the shooting stating the throat wound was an entry wound. They testified to the Warren Commission that it was an exit wound.
And you seriously think there is a comparison between ER doctors in the moments after working feverishly to save the leader of the free world's life and commenting instantaneously upon it and those same doctors having looked at it calmly later? And by doctors, are you seriously suggesting EVERY SINGLE doctor working on him? It was two doctors, Perry and Clark out of an entire life-saving medical team. Furthermore, trauma room specialists ARE NOT forensic pathologists who specialize in such things as entrance/exit wounds.
One of the things the doctors ALSO said was that the throat wound MIGHT have been caused by a fragment from the head wound. Wanna know why they thought the throat was an ENTRANCE wound? Because they NEVER TURNED KENNEDY OVER and saw the ENTRANCE wound in the back.
Obviously then their opinions would change after more thorough investigation as is true of ANY medical professional.
My point is not that you're wrong - it's that you're focusing on distractions. Keep in mind that the JFK murder is unquestionably the most investigated murder in world history. And you know what? If a guy killed down the street from you in his house had HIS murder investigated with the thoroughness of the investigators of JFK's death there would be just a many things that didn't make sense ("His wife was normally home but that night she wasn't." Only in the JFK case you take that tiny fact and accuse her of being involved with it - that's exactly how the conspiracy argument works).
Dallas officials stated that removing Kennedy's body from Texas before autopsy was illegal under Texas law.
Feds moved it anyway.
At the direction of Jackie Kennedy. And it had been cleared the legal authority, too.
Autopsy at Bethesda was conducted by pathologists who had very little experience in conducting autopsies. They were upper level administrators at Bethesda. After completing the autopsy on Friday, the had pathologist called the emergency room doctors the next day. To his chagrin they had totally missed the throat wound on Kennedy as it was impossible for them to re-examine. Throat wound was hidden by a tracheotomy which gives even more credence that the throat wound was an entry wound. Anyway head doctor conducting autopsy burned his notes and autopsy report and created a new report including the throat wound that he never examined. All kinds of military brass overseeing the autopsy. Enough to cast at least some doubt?
[/QUOTE]
Unadulterated hogwash - and precisely WHY I reject the conspiracy theory. You're reciting lines here from Oliver Stone. Your allegation of military brass overseeing the autopsy is both amusing and unproven.
I'm trying to figure out how it was they had teams of doctors at every hospital in the DC area - since Jackie Kennedy selected Bethesda. Again, what is amusing is your finding "sinister" reasons for things - but you only hold that as sinister because you are already ASSUMING a conspiracy happened. You would not find much of this sinister otherwise.
This goes on in everyday life and nobody says anything.
The facts are these: none of what you show here changes the fact that Oswald was AT THE SCENE, his palm print was on the weapon, he LEFT the scene and ran away, killed a cop and in a huff was tracked down in a movie theatre. What was Oswald's alibi? Amazingly enough, none of you ever asks that question.
The problem I have here is that both sides can play the game you're playing here - but only one side keeps standing on the soapbox and indicting by innuendo.
Where are the other bullet(s) if there were more than three? (You see, EVERY conspiracy theory virtually mandates four shots). Amazingly enough, the conspiracy side NEVER gives a coherent answer to this.
Why does the autopsy and REPEAT FINDINGS show an ENTRANCE wound from behind? Groden tries to say these are fakes. Of course, Groden is the same guy who testified under oath in the OJ Simpson trial that THIRTY DIFFERENT photos of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were all fakes (I'll stop to let you finish laughing at the absurdity of that).
If there was a conspiracy, Oswald certainly was interrogated enough to hand over anyone involved and maybe get a lesser sentence. But he didn't. Why?
Why is it that ALL evidence that has ever been honestly exposed as FAKE comes ONLY from the conspiracy side?
Why did Oswald kill Tippitt? I mean, this is HUGE here. He had NO REASON to kill Tippitt unless he felt he was about to get caught, did he? And there's no disputing he did it. Ballistics matched it exclusviely to his gun - and he had that gun on him in the Texas Theatre. There were also MULTIPLE eyewitnesses to the case - yet the conspiracy side focuses only upon one who happened to be the furthest away from the scene (Aquila Clemons). However, I would note that ballistics is far more persuasive evidence than eyewitnesses, who often contradict (even though "tall man" and "short guy" can be the same person depending upon the perspective of the witness).
In response to your rhetorical questions and suggestions - I give you a dead body with bullets matched to the killer's gun.
Pointing out "this witness said this but this said that" is fine - but it doesn't trump the ballistics.