Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 21,107
- 6,492
- 335
gee I guess you can't see the note on the diagram that say's entry wound ?
There was a large hole on the rear as is proven by frame 313, the eyewitnesses and the AR. No such entrance wound existed. There is no proof, therefore it was made up.
Wrong you liar.
The autopsy report proves that wound was an ENTRANCE wound and none of your retarded crap proves otherwise
If an entrance wound was indeed found in the back of the skull it certainly wasn't photographed, therefore you only have the words of the AR and NO corroborating evidence.
All of the witnesses I posted refer to a large gaping hole in the right rear. No small entry hole was where it they said it was.
The entrance wound in the back of the skull is consistent with nothing because it didn't exist.
Your insistence that a bullet entered the rear is false and is backed by no evidence whatsoever.
![]()
Yes the entrance wound was photographed and you just posted an image of it.
An entrance wound is not by definition small the skull tends to burst open creating large messy wounds as it did here.
It is not my insistence it is absolute fact proven by the autopsy which you can offer no evidence to refute you have only proven yourself wrong
There is no entry wound anywhere on the rear and you can't circle or show where the docs could see it. They couldn't see it because it wasn't there.
gee I guess you can't see the note on the diagram that say's entry wound ?
There was a large hole on the rear as is proven by frame 313, the eyewitnesses and the AR. No such entrance wound existed. There is no proof, therefore it was made up.
Wrong you liar.
The autopsy report proves that wound was an ENTRANCE wound and none of your retarded crap proves otherwise
If an entrance wound was indeed found in the back of the skull it certainly wasn't photographed, therefore you only have the words of the AR and NO corroborating evidence.
All of the witnesses I posted refer to a large gaping hole in the right rear. No small entry hole was where it they said it was.
The entrance wound in the back of the skull is consistent with nothing because it didn't exist.
Your insistence that a bullet entered the rear is false and is backed by no evidence whatsoever.
![]()
Yes the entrance wound was photographed and you just posted an image of it.
An entrance wound is not by definition small the skull tends to burst open creating large messy wounds as it did here.
It is not my insistence it is absolute fact proven by the autopsy which you can offer no evidence to refute you have only proven yourself wrong
There is no entry wound anywhere on the rear and you can't circle or show where the docs could see it. They couldn't see it because it wasn't there.
Yes it was there they found it and proved it and you are a liar.



farted in here.^



