Robert Prudhomme

Andric, do you have comprehension problems when you read the printed word? Can you not just answer a simple question?

Can you explain to us, as briefly as possible, why such a wound, beginning in the occipital region of JFK's head and extending into the parietal region of JFK's head, is not visible in the official autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head?

Hi David

Yes, it was likely an M1 Garand. Did you know that the 6.5mm Carcano and the M1 Garand share a couple of interesting features?

Both require a scope to be side mounted on the left side; the Carcano because of interference from the bolt and the Garand because it ejects empty cartridges upwards and to the right.

Both rifles employ an "en bloc" charger clip to hold cartridges; six round for the Carcano and eight for the Garand. In the Carcano, the clip falls out the bottom of the magazine when the last round is chambered. In the Garand, the clip is ejected upwards when the last round is fired.

Can you explain to us, as briefly as possible, why such a wound, beginning in the occipital region of JFK's head and extending into the parietal region of JFK's head, is not visible in the official autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head, Andric?

Show us the WC testimony, if you believe he did.

Pat changes his story daily. At one point, he did not think the narrow centre portion of the occipital bone extended above the ears, which it does. However, the occipital bone does NOT extend to the top of the head.

http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=77195

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/occipital+region+of+head

Pat, if BS was music, you would be a three piece band.

I thought we couldn't trust the memories of old people, Pat.

You're joking, I hope.

Andric, before you embarrass yourself further, go back two posts and read what Pat Speer had to say. He believes that Clark described the wound accurately but was somehow mistaken about its location, along with a great number of other people.

Clark clearly describes the large, gaping wound as being in the right rear of JFK's head; in the occipital region. Despite how Pat attempts to twist the facts, the occipital region is that part of the head overlying the occipital bone and, last time I checked, the occipital bone is solely in the back of the skull, not the top, and the majority of the occipital bone is in the lower part of the back of the skull.

I've addressed all your points, Robert. Let's see if you can address mine.

1. Do you think the film and autopsy evidence suggests more than one shooter?

2. If yes, well then why would "they" fake this evidence to suggest more than one shooter?

3. If no, well then please explain which take on the medical evidence you think suggests there was but one shooter, the autopsy report, or the report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel?

4. Why do you think the Newmans, Zapruder, and Burkley thought the wound was by the temple? I mean what are the odds that the recollections of the wound location by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR witnesses would be recorded before the Parkland witnesses uttered a peep about the wound location, or wrote down a word, and that they all would by some amazing coincidence confirm the location of the wound in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and x-rays--which you claim are fakes? I mean, really, what are the odds?

The Zapruder film alteration theory is one unintended casualty in this thread. Mr. Ward already stated that his views on film alteration have "evolved", when confronted about the fact that McClelland credits the film for his transformation from a "lone nut" theory supporter to a conspiracy theorist. Prudhomme needs some time to make the case for alteration without undermining McClelland's credibility. Please give him time.

Perhaps you would like to show me, in Dr. Clark's WC Testimony, where Dr. Clark testifies that the large, gaping wound he saw in JFK's head (tangential or exit or otherwise) was anywhere but the right rear of JFK's head.

Pat Speer seems unwilling or incapable of performing this simple task. Perhaps you can do this for me?

Tried that many times already.

bump

The tangential wounds shown in the photos are CLEARLY only on the surface of the skulls. You can CLEARLY see the path of the bullet as it creates a furrow in the skull bone. That is why they are known as "guttering" wounds. These wounds are NOTHING like what was described in the back of JFK's head. This wound was CLEARLY described as a circular wound with bone material blasted outwards.

Explain to us, keeping in mind that the back of JFK's head would have been squarely facing a sniper on the 6th floor, how JFK could have suffered a tangential bullet entrance wound 2.5 cm. to the right of the external occipital protuberance.

P.S. If it was a tangential wound, resembling the ones depicted in your photos, why does it not appear in the autopsy back of head photos, Pat? You can't have it both ways here. Was there or was there not a large, gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, whether an exit wound or tangential strike, as explained by Dr. Clark?

Look here, Andric, for someone who tells others not to "cherry pick", you certainly seem to practice this yourself a lot.

However, since you seem intent on "exposing" Dr. Clark, I will help you out in this regard. At the end of the discussion, we will see just how bizarre and twisted the evidence presented by the WC really is. The only question that will remain is, who is mad? Clark? Specter? Or has some serious tampering of testimony taken place in regards to Clark's WC testimony?

The last question can never be answered, as there was no counsel to speak on LHO's behalf. Anyways, let's look at what Dr. Clark had to say about JFK's wounds.

Early on in his testimony, Dr. Clark first describes the head wound to Arlen Specter. "This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." This clearly points to the back of the head, slightly to the right of the back of the head, and low in the back of the head. How do I know it is low? The presence of cerebellar tissue. The diagram below shows the location of the cerebellum

Well, I tried to post a diagram of the brain showing the location of the cerebellum but Surprise! Surprise! I seem unable to c/p anything. Anyways, the cerebellum is a tiny part of the brain at the very bottom of brain mass and at the very back of the brain, behind the brainstem. It would basically be almost directly beneath the location Commander Humes gives at the autopsy for the bullet entrance wound; beneath the external occipital protuberance.

Now, Andric, before you go running off saying that Dr. Clark must have been mistaken about the location of the large head wound and the presence of damaged cerebellar tissue, remember that this is the Parkland director of neurosurgery you are speaking of. Also remember that you seem to have no problem trusting his powers of observation when you feel he is referring to the right side of JFK's head when referring to the large wound. Who is the cherry picker here?

Next time we hear of the head wound Clark described as a "large, gaping wound", Specter is asking Clark if he feels it is an exit or entrance wound. This is where the BS really starts to pile up. Remember, this is a few months after the assassination, and there has been ample time to terrorize Clark into "getting with the program". Dr. Clark describes the large, gaping wound as being one of entrance, but also a "tangential wound". In other words, instead of striking JFK's skull squarely, Clark believed the bullet struck JFK's skull at an oblique angle, despite the Zapruder film showing JFK bent over slightly and the back of his head almost square on to a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Clark states that a bullet striking at an oblique angle would have to penetrate far more bone and thus would shed more energy, causing greater damage to the brain.

This is utter nonsense on Clark's part, and clearly something Clark has been coached on. First, this was a FMJ bullet and would have been more than capable of penetrating the skull. Second, if it did shed more energy than normal, it still would not have been able to cause a large gaping wound at the entrance site. Bullets just do not work like this. I have shot many deer in my time with both soft tipped and hollow point bullets. Oblique angles or not, there is ALWAYS a small entrance wound. Any large holes are ALWAYS towards the other side of the skull.

To make matters worse, Clark is describing how a large, gaping wound occurred that, according to the autopsy, did not exist (?)

The next we see of head wound discussion, Clark and Specter are discussing Dr. Perry's reference, at a press conference, to the throat wound possibly being a wound of entrance and the possibility this was responsible for the head wound. Clark responds, "He did not elaborate on this. One of the reporters with gestures indicated the direction that such a bullet would have to take, and Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head."

Top of his head??? Top of his frickin' head???? Something is clearly wrong here. Just a few minutes before this, Clark described the large gaping wound at the back of his head, not the top. I simply refuse to believe a man could rise to the position he did and make such a fantastic blunder as this. I think it very likely that Clark said "back of his head", not top of his head, and that his testimony was altered.

Proof of this is Arlen Specter's enthusiasm for there being a wound at the top of JFK's head, despite Dr. Clark quite clearly describing a wound at the back of JFK's head. Right out of the blue, Specter pops this little gem on Clark, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the President's head, with the brain protruding; did you observe any other hole or wound on the President's head?" to which Clark replied, "No sir; I did not."

NOWHERE in Dr. Clark's testimony does Clark describe a massive wound to the top of JFK's head, yet Specter makes this insane reference to something Clark never said, simply because it was part of Specter's script. Clark obviously knows this, and makes no attempt to divert Specter from what is obviously a predetermined course. Just how frightened was this man?

However, Dr. Clark decides, later on in his testimony, to go for broke and put the large wound at the back of JFK's head again.

"Mr. Specter - Dr. Clark, would your observations be consistent with some other alleged facts in this matter, such as the presence of a lateral wound measuring 15 x 6 mm on the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberant--that is to say, could such a hole have been present without your observing it?

Dr. Clark - Yes, in the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp above such a wound and lateral to it and the brief period of time available for examination--yes, such a wound could be present."

Thank you, Dr. Clark, for sneaking that one by Arlen Specter. Okay, let's see what he told us. The "alleged" bullet entrance wound is 2.5 cm. to the right of the EOP (that little knob in the centre of the lower part of the back of your head) and slightly above it. Obviously, "slightly" must be less than 2.5 cm (one inch) or this would have been assigned a number, too. Clark says "In the presence of this much destruction....above such a wound and lateral to it...". He basically is telling us that the large gaping wound at the right rear of JFK's head is "in the presence of" or very close to the entrance wound and is just above it and lateral to it. "Lateral" means on the same level but slightly more forward. By my estimation, this puts the large wound right where Clark said it was in the first place, "in the right posterior part". He has merely described it in such a manner as to not let Specter know he described it this way.

Next, we have Dr. Clark discussing what faculties JFK would have possessed, had he survived. "Just let me state that the loss of cerebrellar (sic) tissue would probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties." So, if the large wound was at the top of his head, how would the cerebellum have been hit, as it sits so low at the back of the brain? How would cerebellar material be protruding from the top of JFK's head? How did Clark know the cerebellum was even damaged?

Just to add insult to injury, Dr. Clark is called back to testify four days later. While discussing how it was possible for the Parkland doctors to have overlooked the back wound, he drops this gem, just to make sure there is no doubt in his mind just where the large head wound was.

"Dr. Clark - No, sir. Such a would could have been easily overlooked in the presence of the much larger wound in the right occipital region of the President's skull, from which considerable blood loss had occurred which stained the back of his head, neck and upper shoulders."

Last time I checked, the occipital bone was in the lower part of the back of the skull.

For the last month or so, I have been unable to get the "Quote" function to work. Also, I seem to be unable to copy and paste material from elsewhere on the Internet. Is anyone else experiencing this? Could the moderators look into this matter, please?

From the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. William Kemp Clark, March 21, 1964:

"Mr. Specter - What did you observe the President's condition to be on your arrival there?

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."

Seems to be a reliable source, Andric. And, being the director of neurological surgery at Parkland Hospital, I certainly hope Dr. Clark was capable of telling the back of the head from the right front, and cerebral tissue from that of the cerebellum.

Let me guess, you peruse the Star and the Globe, too? Or do you just parrot everything you read at patspeer.com?

So, Andric, you are telling us that your main source of research material is the National Enquirer????

You're embarrassing yourself, Pat. Why don't you just stop.

I am having the same problems, Robert. I cannot cut and paste anything, nor can I quote anyone's post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmFdfvDT6GQ

I found the records of Edgar Lee Tippit, the father of J.D. Tippit. He was born in 1902 and passed away in 2006 at the age of 104. By all accounts, he was "sharp as a tack" in his later years and he attended, along with Dale K. Myers, the dedication of a monument to his slain son in 2001 just outside the town of Clarksville, Texas. He was 99 at the time of the dedication.

"Sarcasm is lost on fools and little children."

~~ author unknown ~~

Hi David

Good to see you on this thread. I'm sure Mr. Caddy's release of this gem has sparked your interest, too. What a shame that the senior Mr. Tippit has likely passed away some time ago, as the interview with him by McBride would have been conducted thirty some years ago, although there is the slim chance he may still be alive. Any Dallas sleuths out there?

Good work in tracking down the patrolman attending the accident, but didn't the post say that the patrolman was IN an accident, not AT an accident?