Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robert Prudhomme

Members
  • Posts

    4,105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Robert Prudhomme

  1. Another good question. During my recent "holiday" I have been watching the debate on this forum. It's good to see Bill Miller reviving the Calvery/Lovelady/Shelley debacle but I don't think he quite appreciates how deeply we dug into this matter before his arrival.
  2. You always have asked the best questions, my friend. Who indeed? Or is it whom? I can never get that one straight.
  3. I agree, Thomas. In order for Lovelady and Shelley to be seen walking down the Elm St. extension, as Baker runs for the TSBD entrance, would have required Calvery to have run up Elm St. to the steps in about ten seconds, relay her story on the steps to Lovelady and Shelley in three to four seconds and for Shelley and Lovelady to have sprinted off the steps to their position in the Couch film in about three to four seconds. Hardly something one could mistake for 3-4 minutes just for the storyteller to make it to the steps.
  4. I believe Lovelady is visible on the steps. Our left, partway down, facing the camera. Bent over as though speaking to the person below him facing him. He seems to rise up partially from this position.
  5. Hi everyone! I'm back on the Forum after a lovely holiday granted to me by Mr. Gordon, during which I had the opportunity to reflect on my questioning the comprehension skills of a fellow Forum member. While it may be that no one, including Buell Wesley Frazier, recalls seeing LHO on the top step of the TSBD entrance, there is something here that I find very strange. The film clearly shows Frazier standing on the top step looking toward the corner where Prayer Man was standing, yet I am not certain Frazier has ever admitted to even seeing anyone there. Was PM invisible?
  6. Once again, Tom. What proof is there that the projectile exiting JFK's throat was travelling on a horizontal plane?
  7. I have been trying in vain to locate something but, so far, I have not had any luck. Somewhere, I believe I saw a detailed description of the wound to the right side of JFK's trachea; visible on the right side of the neck structure in the above diagram. The description I believe I read stated the tear in the trachea was on a descending plane between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings; visible in the above diagram below the larynx. In other words, from left to right, the tear went from the 2nd tracheal ring to the 3rd tracheal ring. As can be seen, this would indicate a bullet (or other projectile) travelling downward at a fairly steep angle from left to right. The fact that the thin layer of skin over the trachea is directly in contact with the trachea means that, regardless of the angle downward, the projectile will exit the throat at the same place it exits the trachea. Tom A line drawn that begins just under the rear base of the skull and passes between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring (passing through C3/C4 vertebrae on the way) measures approximately 42° from the horizontal. Of curse, it is difficult to know the exact position of JFK's head, relative to his neck and to a horizontal plane, at the moment this projectile struck him, and the figure of 42° has a great deal of latitude to it. While it would seem impossible to deflect a bullet from its original 20+° path to this steep angle, remember that the bullet may have struck just slightly above the base of the skull. Striking here, it could be burrowing through the scalp and surface of the skull bone, robbing it of velocity and energy. This could also have the effect of making JFK's head tilt slightly forward, presenting a new angle of bone and scalp to the bullet and allowing it to travel further. I do not agree with Pat Speer's thinking that this had to be a low velocity bullet. Frangible bullets are designed to wreak havoc by travelling through semi-liquid matter; ie. brain and other organs. A frangible bullet, especially one of 1963 vintage, could easily break apart after striking the vertebrae at C3/C4.
  8. As I told you in another thread, Bill, it's a shame you never read the entirety of Billy Lovelady's testimony to the Warren Commission. Or. perhaps you did read it, and found it so disagreeable, you struck it from your memory. According to Lovelady's testimony, he and Bill Shelley would have still been on the steps of the TSBD at the time Baker was allegedly running up those steps, and would continue to be there for 1-2 minutes after Truly and Baker entered the TSBD. Still want Lovelady for a Baker-early-entry-into-the-TSBD witness? PS It's one thing to read the WCR but, if one lacks comprehension skills, it is a wasted exercise.
  9. Well, Bill, it's a shame you only read part of Billy Lovelady's testimony. If you had read the entire thing, you would know that Lovelady testified he and Shelley were still on the steps of the TSBD at the time Baker was allegedly running up those same steps. Would you like me to show everyone the part of Lovelady's testimony you skipped over, or would you like to share with us?
  10. Bill As I asked you on another thread, do you believe Lovelady was a reliable witness to Baker's entry into the TSBD seconds after the last shot, and have you read Lovelady's testimony to the Warren Commission?
  11. A member from the JFKMURDERSOLVED forum was kind enough to send me this link to a BBC interview with Parkland doctor Robert Grossman from several years ago. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/saturdaylive/saturdaylive_20080628.shtml In this interview, Grossman clearly states that JFK's head was lifted up to afford Parkland surgeons a better view of the large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head.
  12. Do you think Bill Lovelady is a reliable witness for Baker making an entry into the TSBD seconds after the last shot?
  13. Strange that no one at Parkland mentioned such an obvious head wound.
  14. Think of this possibility, Bill. Truly entered the TSBD immediately following the shots, and Baker entered a few minutes later and met Truly in the lobby. By the time Baker entered the building, Frazier, Molina and most of the other employees on the steps had gone inside. THAT would explain why neither Frazier or Molina saw Baker enter the building, and why Molina saw Truly enter the building. The second floor encounter with Oswald and Baker was essential to framing Oswald as the killer. Baker entering the building later than he claimed would allow Oswald to be out of the building before Baker entered.
  15. You forgot Frazier and yes, I believe the FBI fabricated a great deal of evidence. There is proof of this.
  16. Buell Wesley Frazier and Joe Molina, who were both standing on the top landing directly in front of the door, were specifically asked by a WC lawyer, several times, if they saw a white helmeted police officer enter the TSBD, to which they both replied "No". As their attention would be drawn toward Elm St. by recent events, they should have been looking right at Baker as he came up the steps. Yet, they did not see Baker. If you don't find this odd, I don't know what is then.
  17. Hi Sandy " And how some saw cerebral brain matter oozing from the wound" I think you meant to say "cerebellar", right?
  18. " And he changed his tune, along with most of the other doctors, after seeing the autopsy photos... If, 15 years after your high school graduation, you were asked what shirt you wore to your graduation, and said the shirt was green, would you change your mind about this if someone showed you a picture of the ceremony in which you were wearing a blue shirt? I know I would. And most of the key staff at Parkland did something quite similar... While some might choose to believe they were duped, that's really beside the point, isn't it?. You can't build a case when your best witnesses. e.g. Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, Baxter, changed their mind about what they saw. Or rather, you can, but you'll lose most of those you've hooked once they realize your rock-hard evidence has turned to mush..." Uh, no, Pat. Please spare us your circular logic. I believe we received enough of that already from the Trump campaign. First day testimony, statements and reports are the most valuable. Next would be WC testimony. The LAST thing I would rely on is a 15 year old statement, not just because of memory problems, but because someone has had the chance to intimidate these witnesses in that time.
  19. " This brings us to Midgett. While Dr. William Midgett's presence in the emergency room was confirmed by the Warren Commission testimony of several nurses, his impressions were not recorded until decades later when he was interviewed first by Gerald Posner and then Wallace Milam. He is reported to have told Posner the wound was "more parietal than occipital" and to have told Milam it was an approximately 6 cm wound in the parietal area behind the ear. While this is not the wound shown in the autopsy photos it is also NOT the wound on the far back of the head in the occipital bone oozing cerebellum so many claim as the one true wound." First off, I cannot believe you are quoting Posner. What is next, chapter and verse from John McAdams? Next, you should look more closely at what you are saying, as you are openly contradicting yourself. First, you tell us that none of the doctors actually involved in attempting to save JFK's life could possibly have gotten a close look at the large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, yet Midgett, who probably got to do nothing more than open the ER door for people coming and going, was able to accurately pinpoint the location of the wound, and was able to give its size in centimetres? Please do not take offence while I laugh myself silly here, Pat. The fatal flaw in your argument, though, is that while Midgett claimed the wound was "more parietal than occipital", he does not rule out the wound as being partly occipital. Once again, I will give you a free lesson in bone structure of the human skull. Looking again at this diagram, it is possible to see the occipital bone at the lower rear of the human skull. The juncture between occipital and parietal bone rises from each side and the two junctures meet at the centre of the back of the head; making this the highest point of the occipital bone. EVEN AT the highest point, it is NOWHERE NEAR the top of the skull. However, as the wound was in the right rear, this would place the occipital-parietal juncture even lower; easily as low as the middle of the ear. Though I doubt Midgett got close enough to get a good look, this still would make him a Back of Head witness.
×
×
  • Create New...