Ray Mitcham

Dr Kemp Clark

"Dr. CLARK - The President was lying on his back on the emergency cart. Dr. Perry was performing a tracheotomy. There were chest tubes being inserted. Dr. Jenkins was assisting the President's respirations through a tube in his trachea. Dr. Jones and Dr. Carrico were administering fluids and blood intravenously. The President was making a few spasmodic respiratory efforts. I assisted. in withdrawing the endotracheal tube from the throat as Dr. Perry was then ready to insert the tracheotomy tube . I then examined the President briefly.
My findings showed his pupils were widely dilated, did not react to light, and his eyes were deviated outward with a slight skew deviation.
I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the floor, and the clothing of some of the people present. I would estimate 1,500 cc. of blood being present.
 

"I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head"

For those who say there wasn't a wound at the back of the head, was  Dr Clark, the chief neurosurgeon  at Parkland hospital. lying or was he just mistaken?

Recollections of Audrey Bell to ARRB   (04/l 4/97 Summary of ARRB interview)

She did not see the throat wound herself.

Although only in Trauma Room One for 3-5 minutes, she did see the head wound. After asking Dr Perry “where is the wound”, she said he turned the President's head slightly to the President's anatomical lef, so that she could see a right rear posterior head wound, which she described as occipital in both her oral remarks, and in her drawings.

She said she could see brain and spinal fluid coming out of the wound, but could not tell what type of brain tissue it was:

She said it was her recollection that the right side of the president's head, and the top of his head were intact, which is why she had to ak Dr Perry where the wound was in the first place.

Carolyn Arnold caught a fleeting glance of Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors at the entrance to the TSBD.

Her first time 12.15 p.m. she later corrected to12.25p.m.

Mrs. R. E. ARNOLD, Secretary, Texas School Book Depository, advised she was in her office on the second floor of the building on November 22, 1963, and left that office between 12:00 and 12:15 PM, to go downstairs and stand in front of the building to view the Presidential Motorcade. As she was standing in front of the building, she stated she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of LEE HARVEY OSWALD standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse, located on the first floor. She could not be sure that this was OSWALD, but said she felt it was and believed the time to be a few minutes before 12:15 PM.

She stated thereafter she viewed the Presidential Motorcade and heard the shots that were fired at the President; however, she could furnish no information of value as to the individual firing the shots or any other information concerning OSWALD, whom she stated she did not know and had merely seen him working in the building.

I wonder how the Doctors at Parkland got it so wrong when they said that there was cerebellum protruding from the Parietal occip[ital wound.

If they were right, then the cerebellum must have come via the top of the head wound shown above. 

Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out–it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right–rear of the head.” ( (HSCA-V7:286-287) In an interview with the American Medical News published on 11-24-78 Jenkins said, “…(Kennedy) had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out.”

I agree with Bob and Richard. Baker appears to be running past the front of the TSBD and towards the DalTex Building. His later affidavit says he "decided" the shots came from the TSBD, but he could have decided, at the time his statement was made, to change his original destination to the TSBD rather than the Daltex because by then he knew  that the rifle had been found in the TSBD.

Sorry, Pat, there is no reason for the morticians to create a hole in the back of the head. The hole was either there or it wasn't. If it was there it shows a shot from the front. If it wasn't, they would have  had no need to create one.

What you appear to be  saying is that they made the hole to use the bits as filler elsewhere on the skull for cosmetic purposes. Really ?

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The hole remaining on the skull at the end of reconstruction was at the back of the head. They were told to prepare Kennedy for an open-casket funeral, so they re-constructed his skull so that the hole was at the back of the head, where it could be hidden in a pillow. It doesn't mean the hole was originally at the back of the head, however.

Pat, if there was no hole in the back of the head, and the back of the head would be hidden by a pillow, why would they go to the trouble of making one? 

Gif slowed down to quarter speed.

http://vid46.photobucket.com/albums/f128/Fourbrick/Zap3_zpslmb6e6hx.mp4

So the guy who did the tracheotomy didn't know how big the cut was.

Got it.

"Dr. Perry made an incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry said the incision was "two to three centimeters" wide [4, p. 272]. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively [4, p. 275]. After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision" [5, p. 54] Dr. Perry described the bullet wound in the throat as "inviolate" [6, pp. 100-101]."

Edited

4 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Oh well, I can sympathize with the old lady in that regard. I wouldn't even know a Blackberry if I saw one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thought this video might amuse you and the rest of the guys, Ron.

(Orange is a phone service provider in the UK)

Has anybody proven that it was Shelley, who is allegedly walking down the street with Lovelady? Could it be Lovelady walking past some other guy?

The saying "As welcome as fart in a space suit" should now be changed to "As welcome as a trump in the Oval Office."

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/264355/in-what-english-speaking-communities-does-trump-refer-to-the-breaking-of-wind

"If you wish to continue the debate, please supply all the evidence you mentioned in your posts and which I have asked for in this post."

I think you are in for a long wait, Andrej.

James, why is no longer possible to see who is on the site at any given moment. Was this a deliberate omission or just an error?

Bart, he has slagged everybody off. Anybody who disagrees with him is immediately insulted. There isn't one poster who agrees with his mad ideas.

I'm afraid he is a second Cinque.

This is the photo I converted and posted.

I am no longer interested in discussing the matter with you.

What was the old saying? There are none so blind as those who will not see.

As I converted the Groden photo into Black and white, I assume that you are accusing me of photoshopping it. As I didn't, and, as you can see the pocket in the black and white photo, you have proven that it is there. Just that you couldn't see it in the colour version.

I'm not going to argue with you any further. It's just a waste of time.

You are right about one thing. I certainly am an anti Cinque guy. He is crackers.

Wow. I mean, just, wow.

I agree with you and Jim Di, Michael. It is too trivial for further discussion.

Note that the red (Black in this B&W photo) material bulging out above the black stripe on the pocket, with the cigarette packet behind it, showing that the top line of the pocket is above the black line not on it.

David, the polka dot dress worn by the woman running away from the scene was described as white with Black or Blue dots. not white dots. FWIW.

For the very last time, Sandy. The pocket is there in the Groden photo.

You just can't see it. We can. Look at the photo at Bob's post 31.

Ray - never saw that Seinfeld episode? Very entertaining, probably find the relevant part of the episode on YouTube

Just watched it, Paul. Hilarious. Never seen it before.

"Magic Loogie"

Thanks for the laugh.

No way was that my intention. (Bit below the belt there, Sandy.) I was replying to your comment that "nobody" picked up Lifton's mistakes at the time. Lawson did. I have no love or truck with Lamson, but most times he is right when he discusses photography.

Your seeking out to prove me wrong was below the belt, Ray. Why didn't you just stop after I said Lamson doesn't count? Had you done so I wouldn't have called you out on this.

I had no intention of proving you wrong. I was correcting your statement.

But Lamson does count. Just because he is obnoxious, doesn't mean he is wrong.

Ray, the spirit of my comment was that all those guys posting on the thread were letting Lifton's mistake -- in his momentous statement -- slide. Given that Lamson is an LNer who disagrees with EVERYTHING that contradicts the official story, I think it was fair for me to ignore him.

When you pointed out that my statement was incorrect, why didn't you say something like, well yeah almost everybody let Lifton get away with his mistake. But Craig Lamson pointed it out.

Instead your reply was like, sorry Sandy you are wrong.

But you were wrong, Sandy. If you had travelled further into the topic you would have seen that several people agree with Lamson. Robin Unger, Pat Speer, James R Gordon and Dean Hagerman to name just a couple I have just found.

For example, Hagerman says this

"Well first of all Craig is not my "pal" we disagree on almost everything, however I respect Craig and his photographic skills