Robert Prudhomme

If Dr. Carrico points out a wound on the back of JFK's head above his ear, perhaps you could explain his testimony to the Warren Commission on March 25, 1964:

"Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the nature of the head wound which you observed on the President?
Dr. CARRICO - The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura."

Once again, I am somewhat confused by the point you are trying to make here. The wound depicted in the drawing approved by Dr. McClelland can hardly be described as being low in the back of the head. Almost 50% of the wound in the drawing is above the top of the ear. If you look at the diagrams below, it is obvious that the edge of the occipital bone, in the area of the right rear of the skull, is pretty much level with the top of the ear.

Head_Image_sml.jpg

untitled.png

I would say, without hesitation, that the drawing approved by Dr. McClelland shows the wound extending well into the parietal region of the head, making this an occipito-parietal wound, as claimed by the majority of Parkland witnesses, and amply displayed by the witnesses in the majority of the photos you posted.

Robert,

I agree with you. The McClelland Drawing is drawn from about the same perspective as a seven-foot man looking down on a six-footer.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Mr. Graves

It is nice to see that we agree on so many things. As my late father was fond of saying, "Great minds think alike and fools seldom differ; take your pick, son."

Well, DVP has predictably derailed this thread, turning it into an argument about the head wound.

Getting back to the topic here, I would love to hear more of you chiming in. And I'm serious about the research community trying to finally come together in some kind of unified force. I can't believe any one who has studied the evidence and realized the official story was impossible could not agree to the statement I wrote. I'd love to know if David Lifton could support it, or Josiah Thompson. Or the posters here who regularly find themselves in fierce squabbles with others who doubt the official story.

We continue to eat our own. I was just made aware that Joe Backes headlined a recent post on his blog, "Why Don Jeffries Is An .....(expletive deleted)." From what I've read, Joe and I seem to agree on the main issues in this case. I expect this stuff from LNers like Paul May- whom I also recently discovered has termed me "an incompetent moderator" on another forum, but not from those who agree there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.

We all need to put aside these petty personality disputes, and reign in our egos. We ought to be able to rally behind a simple point of agreement, if exposing the truth about the assassination of JFK is really what we desire.

[...] just as no one can place LHO in the sniper's nest at 12:30 PM 22/11/63, no one can place him anywhere else at that moment; or within fifteen minutes prior to that time. It is, and will remain, a mystery for all time.

Also, LHO's actions in the few years leading up to the assassination are so bizarre, one cannot help but believe LHO was somehow involved with the intelligence community. Whether or not this makes him a conspirator in the assassination, regardless of whether or not he actually fired a rifle, is another mystery. As one learned gentleman hypothesized, he may very well have been gathering intelligence on a group he was led to believe were the real conspirators. This would make him the perfect patsy when the time came to spring the double cross on him, as he would maintain silence on his involvement both out of a sense of duty and a conviction that he, as an intelligence agent, would surely be exonerated of the crime of assassinating JFK in the due course of time.

Robert,

I agree. Well stated and makes perfect sense. I tried to say something along the same lines earlier in this thread when I said in so many words that it's impossible to make a declarative "position statement" that includes the contradictory positions that Oswald was either totally innocent or was somehow involved. The beauty about the way you put it it that it actually reconciles the two: Oswald was possibly involved in an innocent sort of way!

Sincerely,

--Tommy

I would dearly love to take credit for the idea of the innocent intelligence agent double crossed into taking the blame for an assassination but, as I said, it was another gentleman who put the idea into my head. And, if I'm not mistaken, his inspiration came from the part played by Warren Beatty in "The Parallax View".

Your convoluted sense of logic can also be applied to the autopsy of JFK. On one hand, we are supposed to believe the autopsy doctors, led by Commander Humes, were so grossly incompetent they misplaced the entry wound on JFK's skull; erroneously locating it at the external occipital protruberance instead of near the top of the head in the cowlick area. On the other hand, the entry wound in JFK's back was located by the same autopsy doctors as being 14 cm. below the tip of JFK's right mastoid process and 14 cm. to the left of JFK's right acromion process, and this is held as Gospel by the true believers of the Warren Commission.

If the autopsy doctors were so incompetent as to place the entry wound in JFK's head at the back of the head, instead of near to the top of the head, should we not be questioning all of their findings?

You can't have it both ways, Mr. Von Pein; it's either one way or the other.

I disagree. Because there's a big difference:

We have the autopsy photos to guide us (which were all deemed unaltered in 1978).

So we have a good solid PHOTOGRAPHIC reason to know that Dr. Humes was, indeed, incorrect when he placed the entry wound very low on JFK's head.

But, in actuality, common sense (coupled with the verbiage we find in the autopsy report itself) will tell any reasonable person that the entry wound was definitely HIGHER than where Humes placed it in his interviews and testimony (except for his 1978 HSCA testimony, when he regained his rational thinking for a few minutes and reversed himself after looking squarely at the autopsy pictures)....because in the autopsy report ITSELF, it says that the entry wound was "slightly above" the EOP.

Now, yes, we can argue all day about how many inches can be included via a word like "slightly", but it's also quite clear from the autopsy report that the wound WAS "above" the EOP. And how could anybody think this white splotch at JFK's hairline is located ABOVE (or "slightly above") the EOP? It's ridiculous. That white speck is obviously well BELOW the EOP:

Rather odd, wouldn't you say, that the HSCA pointed to a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, and no investigative body followed up on this revelation?

You're wrong. The NAS followed up the HSCA. And the NAS said this:

"The previously analyzed sounds were recorded about one minute after the assassination and, therefore, too late to be attributed to assassination shots." -- CBA/NAS Final Report; May 14, 1982

Do you now want to call the NAS people liars and "hacks" too, Robert?

How many committees and commissions and panels would it take to get to admit that maybe there just might be something to this "Oswald did it" stuff?

And we really don't even need the NAS/CBA report at all, because the HSCA's acoustics evidence can be proven wrong by just taking one quick look at the Hughes Film:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html

Footnote---

My apologies, too, for derailing this thread. I'm done now. Proceed with your "Let's Band Together To Make LHO Something He Wasn't--An Innocent Patsy" meeting.

You, sir, are not worthy of consideration.

Once again, I am somewhat confused by the point you are trying to make here. The wound depicted in the drawing approved by Dr. McClelland can hardly be described as being low in the back of the head. Almost 50% of the wound in the drawing is above the top of the ear. If you look at the diagrams below, it is obvious that the edge of the occipital bone, in the area of the right rear of the skull, is pretty much level with the top of the ear.

I would say, without hesitation, that the drawing approved by Dr. McClelland shows the wound extending well into the parietal region of the head, making this an occipito-parietal wound, as claimed by the majority of Parkland witnesses, and amply displayed by the witnesses in the majority of the photos you posted.

Well, DVP has predictably derailed this thread, turning it into an argument about the head wound.

Getting back to the topic here, I would love to hear more of you chiming in. And I'm serious about the research community trying to finally come together in some kind of unified force. I can't believe any one who has studied the evidence and realized the official story was impossible could not agree to the statement I wrote. I'd love to know if David Lifton could support it, or Josiah Thompson. Or the posters here who regularly find themselves in fierce squabbles with others who doubt the official story.

We continue to eat our own. I was just made aware that Joe Backes headlined a recent post on his blog, "Why Don Jeffries Is An .....(expletive deleted)." From what I've read, Joe and I seem to agree on the main issues in this case. I expect this stuff from LNers like Paul May- whom I also recently discovered has termed me "an incompetent moderator" on another forum, but not from those who agree there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.

We all need to put aside these petty personality disputes, and reign in our egos. We ought to be able to rally behind a simple point of agreement, if exposing the truth about the assassination of JFK is really what we desire.

My aopolgies, Mr. Jeffries. We certainly have strayed somewhat from the original theme of this thread.

I can possibly agree with about 95% of the proposed joint statement you laid out for perusal at the beginning of this thread. My 5% of uncertainty stems from the simple fact that, just as no one can place LHO in the sniper's nest at 12:30 PM 22/11/63, no one can place him anywhere else at that moment; or within fifteen minutes prior to that time. It is, and will remain, a mystery for all time.

Also, LHO's actions in the few years leading up to the assassination are so bizarre, one cannot help but believe LHO was somehow involved with the intelligence community. Whether or not this makes him a conspirator in the assassination, regardless of whether or not he actually fired a rifle, is another mystery. As one learned gentleman hypothesized, he may very well have been gathering intelligence on a group he was led to believe were the real conspirators. This would make him the perfect patsy when the time came to spring the double cross on him, as he would maintain silence on his involvement both out of a sense of duty and a conviction that he, as an intelligence agent, would surely be exonerated of the crime of assassinating JFK in the due course of time.

Is that all you have? A panel full of hacks either blackmailed or bribed to come up with the conclusions demanded of them?

Yeah, right, Bob. That must be why those SAME "hacks" (the HSCA as a whole, that is) came to a conclusion that a conspiracy did exist to assassinate JFK.

I'll bet you love that decision about "conspiracy" that the HSCA made, don't you Robert? But when it comes to anything suggesting Oswald shot anybody on 11/22/63, that same committee is "full of hacks" who were "bribed" and "blackmailed". Lovely.

Your convoluted sense of logic can also be applied to the autopsy of JFK. On one hand, we are supposed to believe the autopsy doctors, led by Commander Humes, were so grossly incompetent they misplaced the entry wound on JFK's skull; erroneously locating it at the external occipital protruberance instead of near the top of the head in the cowlick area. On the other hand, the entry wound in JFK's back was located by the same autopsy doctors as being 14 cm. below the tip of JFK's right mastoid process and 14 cm. to the left of JFK's right acromion process, and this is held as Gospel by the true believers of the Warren Commission.

If the autopsy doctors were so incompetent as to place the entry wound in JFK's head at the back of the head, instead of near to the top of the head, should we not be questioning all of their findings?

You can't have it both ways, Mr. Von Pein; it's either one way or the other.

With all due respect, Mr. Speer, I cannot see a conflict between the location of the back of the head wound, as seen in the drawing approved by Dr. McClelland in Josiah Thompson's 1967 book "Six Seconds in Dallas", and the location of the same wound as described by the majority of the Parkland doctors in their Warren Commission testimony from 1964.

The majority of doctors described the back of head wound as being in the occipito-parietal region of the skull. While not all of the doctors actually viewed the wound, pinpointing its location was, in most cases, a simple process of elimination. In other words, if JFK was in a supine position, he was lying with the back of his head (occipito-parietal) resting on the table. As there was no wound visible on any other part of his head, it stood to reason the large gaping wound had to be in the one location not visible to them. This became painfully obvious once JFK had received a blood transfusion and chest compressions were being performed on him. With each compression, as it was observed, a great gush of blood was seen to come out from the hidden region at the back of JFK's head.

For comparison purposes, here is the drawing from Josiah Thompson's book Six Seconds in Dallas, approved by Dr. Robert McClelland, and a drawing showing the location and boundaries of the bones of the skull. Considering that the occipital bone is located only at the rear of the head, and that the McClelland drawing appears to centre the wound on the boundary of the occipital and parietal bones, I must reiterate my belief that no conflict exists beween Dr. McClelland's description of the back of head wound and the description of the same wound by the majority of Parkland doctors present in the ER room that day.

Is that all you have? A panel full of hacks either blackmailed or bribed to come up with the conclusions demanded of them?

Yeah, right, Bob. That must be why those SAME "hacks" (the HSCA as a whole, that is) came to a conclusion that a conspiracy did exist to assassinate JFK.

I'll bet you love that decision about "conspiracy" that the HSCA made, don't you Robert? But when it comes to anything suggesting Oswald shot anybody on 11/22/63, that same committee is "full of hacks" who were "bribed" and "blackmailed". Lovely.

Rather odd, wouldn't you say, that the HSCA pointed to a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, and no investigative body followed up on this revelation?

Best Evidence Schmevidence! Is that all you have? A panel full of hacks either blackmailed or bribed to come up with the conclusions demanded of them?

Do you not find it odd that the vast majority of Parkland doctors testified to a wound in the right rear of JFK's head to the Warren Commission, yet almost unanimously made a complete reversal on this testimony, almost simultaneously, in the early 1990's?

What do you think is more accurate, notes written by young doctors the day of the assassination, testimony by those doctors a few months later or their "improved" recollections conveyed to Gerald Posner almost thirty years later?

What a remarkable coincidence! They all see the same thing the day of the assassination, and almost all make identical denials thirty years later! What are the odds, Mr. Von Pein?

edit

Mr. Speer

Are you suggesting the medical witnesses at Parkland Memorial ER suffered from a form of mass delusion, brought on by Dr. Clark's singular observation of cerebellar material protruding from the wound in JFK's head?

...the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin, and was framed by others for the crime.

The "available evidence" in the JFK murder case, of course, shows conclusively the exact opposite to that of what Don Jeffries has stated above.

There is not one single piece of physical evidence in the whole case that even suggests the existence of an assassin other than Lee Harvey Oswald. And that includes the so-called "Malcolm Wallace fingerprint", which has never been proven to be Wallace's and, more importantly, is a print that has never ever been proven to have been lifted off of a box that was located in the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository. And the verbiage that can be found in Commission Exhibit No. 3131 provides additional information to indicate that the "Wallace print" is nothing but a hoax.

So for a conspiracy theorist to say that "the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin" is pretty much akin to saying that the available evidence regarding a study of the sun conclusively proves that the sun is not hot, or that a study of water conclusively proves that it isn't wet at all.

And regarding the JFK case, I want to know if Mr. Jeffries is really suggesting that it is truly more reasonable to think that all of the evidence is fake and phony, vs. believing that ANY of it is legitimate and non-phony? (After all, if even a tiny percentage of that evidence IS legit, then Lee Oswald is almost assuredly guilty. Wouldn't you agree with that assessment, Don?)

Furthermore, from Don Jeffries' point-of-view, would it even be possible to fake so much evidence after the assassination (or before) and make it all come together in the perfect "It Was Oswald" pile that even Don must admit is where all of the evidence falls in this double-murder case (including J.D. Tippit's murder)?

If Don answers "Yes, it was possible" to my last inquiry, I'd sure like to hear Don's theory about HOW all that fakery was accomplished in a short period of time after the assassination? (Or was it all faked and planted before the assassintion?)

In other words, is there any chance that a conspiracy theorist, just for once, can actually put his money where his mouth is, and PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that ALL of the evidence against Lee Oswald was faked and/or manufactured in order to frame an innocent Oswald for the murder of JFK?

I agree wholeheartedly and would add that the evidence proves that he was also framed for the Tippit murder.

Which means ALL of that evidence is fake and phony too, right Raymond? From the four bullet shells that littered Tenth Street and Patton Avenue...to the dozen witnesses who fingered Oswald as either the lone gunman of Tippit or fingered him as the person they saw fleeing the immediate scene of Officer Tippit's slaying.

An all-encompassing "Let's Frame Oswald For TWO Murders (Not Just The One On Elm)" plot.

And yet the conspiracy theorists say that it's lone-assassin believers like me who are rewriting the history of the JFK assassination.

"Guys like DVP are committed to a false reality. .... I really do believe he's

just a garden variety xxxx." -- David S. Lifton; July 2011

Incredible, isn't it?

It is actually quite rude, in my estimation, for you to attempt to derail this thread with your personal attacks, and probably even ruder for me to respond to your post. However, I am new here and can likely be forgiven a few transgressions at this point.

To answer your statement "There is not one single piece of physical evidence in the whole case that even suggests the existence of an assassin other than Lee Harvey Oswald", allow me to present an excerpt from the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Charles J. Carrico, March 25, 1964, 9:30 A.M. :

"Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the President's condition upon his arrival?

Dr. CARRICO - He was lying on a carriage, his respirations were slow, spasmodic, described as agonal.

Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by "agonal" if I may interrupt you for just a moment there, Doctor?

Dr. CARRICO - These are respirations seen in one who has lost the normal coordinated central control of respiration. These are spasmodic and usually reflect a terminal patient.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you continue to describe your observations of the President?

Dr. CARRICO - His-- the President's color--I don't believe I said--he was an ashen, bluish, grey, cyanotic, he was making no spontaneous movements, I mean, no voluntary movements at all. We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck, listened very briefly, heard a few cardiac beats, felt the President's back, and detected no large or sucking chest wounds, and then proceeded to the examination of his head. The large skull and scalp wound had been previously observed and was inspected a little more closely. There seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. The pupils were inspected and seemed to be bilaterally dilated and fixed. No pulse was present, and at that time, because of the inadequate respirations and the apparent airway injury, a cuffed endotracheal tube was introduced, employing a larynzo scope. Through the larynzo scope there seemed to be some hematoma around the larynx and immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged tracheal injury. The endotracheal tube was inserted past this injury, the cuff inflated, and the tube was connected to a respirator to assist the inadequate respiration. At about this point the nurse reported that no blood pressure was obtained."

Further testimony by Dr. Carrico on March 25, 1964:

"Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the nature of the head wound which you observed on the President?

Dr. CARRICO - The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other opening in the head besides the one you have just described?

Dr. CARRICO - No, sir; I did not."

So, Dr. Carrico, who examined the head wound prior to attempting to save JFK's life, testified to seeing a large wound in the right rear of JFK's head in the occipito-parietal region of his skull and no other wound anywhere on JFK's head and you have the unmitigated gall to even suggest there was no evidence suggesting the existence of an assassin other than Lee Harvey Oswald???

Mr. Carroll

This is my first post on the Education Forum and may I point out that I consider it an honour to be allowed to post alongside of the esteemed company here.

I would also like to point out that your e-mails to the Editor of the New York Times bring new meaning to the old adage "Nothing hurts quite as much as the truth".

My name is Robert (Bob) Prudhomme. I was born in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada on Dec. 18, 1955. I was not quite eight when JFK died and I still remember, like it was yeserday, staring at the PA speaker in my Grade Two classroom and hearing the principal regretfully announcing JFK had been assassinated.

Although the assassination has interested me from that day forward, it was not until I read several books (Rush to Judgement was one of them) in the 1980's that I began to look more closely at the facts and evidence behind the assassination.

I have spent most of my adult life working as a logger in the rain forests on the north coast of British Columbia, Canada. During a decline in the industry in 2005, I chose to leave the woods for good (not getting any younger LOL) and take the position of water system operator in the village of 400 I live in.

I believe three things unequivocally about the assassination:

1. JFK was shot at least once, and possibly twice, in the head and one of these shots came from a position forward of the limousine.

2. JFK had a large gaping wound in the occipital-parietal region (right rear) of his skull. This was clearly an exit wound.

3. An agency of the American government funds pro-Warren Commission disinformation agents to infiltrate forums such as this one. It is likely that some JFK forums are totally funded by this agency to further these ends.