Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robert Prudhomme

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Robert Prudhomme

  1. " Now let's go back to McCelland. He said he closely observed the wound while he was standing at the head of the table assisting in the tracheotomy. As I've demonstrated, the head is tilted back when a tracheotomy is performed. I don't see how he could see the hole in the so-called McClelland drawing (which he disavowed) from the position described in his statements. Do you?" Use your imagination, Pat. The wound was in the right rear of the head. If McClelland was standing at the head of the table, he had only to shift to his right a few inches, and look at the view he would have had! Remember, Pat, RIGHT rear, not just rear. That places the large gaping wound somewhere between the back centre of the head and the right ear; clearly visible in this photo, and without crouching or contorting.
  2. " I didn't mean to mess with your religion, Robert. But this is the Education Forum, not the blind faith in all the crud that's previously been spewed forum. You're misrepresenting the issue. The issue is not can a person see the back of the head when crouched down at the side at eye level with the back of the head, but can a person get a good look at the back of the head when standing above someone laying on his back on a gurney, with a bunch of people gathered round." Weak argument, Pat. You forget that I am a part time paramedic, and get the opportunity to stand beside patients lying supine in the ER on a regular basis. Not only does the skull curve from back to side, it also curves, at the back, from bottom to top. No crouching is necessary to view the right rear portion of the skull, especially if one takes a step back. Add to this that, unless someone is holding the head in C-spine immobilization, the head is free to move around while any procedures are being performed and, trust me, it will move around.
  3. The only two pieces of evidence to support Baker making an immediate run up the steps of the TSBD, outside of very questionable statements and testimony from Roy Truly, Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady, are third party reports from Ochus Campbell and Pauline Sanders written by the FBI. Many of these third party FBI "reports" have been shown to be less than credible, and some have been shown to be outright fabrications. Ochus Campbell's actual first person statement to the FBI was given, on March 19, 1964, to Special Agents Raymond Switzer and Eugene Petrakis, and may be found at this link: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1381.pdf His first person statement of 19/03/64 to the FBI makes no mention of Baker. Oddly enough, Campbell gave no first day statement, as so many other TSBD witnesses did.
  4. " The being 'bore back' was a figure of speech as I read it." Oh sure, anything inconvenient in someone's testimony, must be just a "figure of speech". Suuure, Bill.
  5. The argument has been repeatedly made that none of the surgeons in Trauma Room One would have been able to see a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, as he was lying on his back and the wound would have been concealed. Look at this photo: If this man was lying on a table at about waist height, would there not be a perfectly good view of the right rear of his head to someone standing on his right side? Add to this the fact there were many procedures going on, and no one was making any attempt to hold JFK's head perfectly still. The least jostle could turn the head to the left (or right) and the view would get even better.
  6. Well, if you believe it, Bill, good for you. And if you believe Truly, good for you, too. BTW, shouldn't we be able to see, in the Couch/Darnell film, Truly being "borne back" to the steps by a large, panicky mob? Or was he lying about that too?
  7. Malarkey yourself, Pat Speer. You have been pushing nonsense on this forum for a long time now and I, for one, have had enough of it. The FIRST DAY reports of the Parkland surgeons all state a large wound involving occipital bone. As this diagram clearly shows, the occipital bone is NOWHERE NEAR the top of the head, so let's not have any more nonsense about doctors pointing toward the tops of their heads, ok? " Most of the Parkland witnesses barely got a peak at the President, and were first asked about his wounds years later." Wrong on both counts. The team of doctors was about to open JFK's chest when it was suggested they all take a closer look at the head wound before doing so. Years later? Seriously, Pat? What would you call their questioning by the Warren Commission lawyers less than six months after the assassination? The majority of these doctors once again told the WC of a wound in the right rear of JFK's head involving occipital bone. If this man was lying on a table beside you at about the height of your waist, would you try to tell me you could not have a perfectly good view of the right rear portion of his head? Malarkey indeed, Mr. Speer!
  8. No evidence he went up the steps either. Frazier never saw him and neither did Molina. These two witnesses were standing directly in front of the door. Don't you find that odd?
  9. I think you would be more likely to withhold speculation than withstand speculation. We already have the evidence of a throat and trachea wound and possibly the deposition of fragments at C3/C4 vertebrae. Unless the bullet deflected so much that it left JFK's body altogether, I would tend to think, just for the sake of speculation, the wound under the EOP might be associated with these other wounds.
  10. I realize this, Micah. However, if it struck higher up (away from the base of the skull) it would be just as likely to punch its way through the skull bone and end up inside the cranial cavity. In order for this shot to exit the throat, the bullet had to have been travelling almost parallel to the curved base of the skull; striking the base a tangential blow and being deflected downward at a steeper angle.
  11. You do understand, Micah, that if a projectile (or part of a projectile) was to ultimately exit JFK's throat, it would have to enter just below the EOP and not at the EOP. If the entry wound was at the EOP, the bullet would likely penetrate the skull bone and, even if it should exit the skull in the front, the projectile would be much higher than the wound was on JFK's throat.
  12. Just because Pat writes long pages does not mean they qualify as evidence.
  13. Pat Are you aware that a tangential wound would not have penetrated the skull? If it had penetrated the skull, it would be a penetrating wound of the skull but, without penetration and with burrowing and disruption of the scalp, it becomes a tangential wound. While tangential head wounds from bullets can be very messy, there is no wound track through the brain, nor is there penetration and disruption of brain matter, as was observed in JFK's brain at the autopsy. Your theory of JFK suffering a tangential head wound, capable of inflicting serious damage to his brain, is quite flawed.
  14. Pat Contrary to popular belief, the human skull is not a cube with sharply defined corners. In other words, if a man is lying on his back on a table, the entirety of the back of his head is not in contact with the table. The very centre of the back of his head will touch the table but, as the skull bone curves around to the vicinity of the ear, a person standing beside this man will have an excellent view of the right rear portion of the skull, as McClelland claimed to have. Also, as it was not suspected JFK had any damage to his vertebrae or spinal cord, no person was holding C-Spine control on JFK. C-Spine control is what we employ to keep a suspected spinal patient's vertebrae in neutral alignment while we are in the process of spinally immobilizing him and packaging him for a trip to the hospital. Without spinal immobilization being manually applied, JFK's head would have been free to move about, and with all of the procedures going on, I highly doubt his head would have remained perfectly motionless, nor would anyone have been concerned if it wasn't. This "JFK's head was against the table and no one could have seen a wound in the back of the head" argument is a favourite with LN's but, upon close examination, it only fools those with no medical experience. Note the entire juncture of the parietal and occipital bones is visible in this side view of the skull.
  15. It is a shame there is not one shred of evidence showing Baker ascending the steps immediately after crossing the Elm St. extension.
  16. Actually, it's not, Sandy. I was using this site to demonstrate that "gunshot wound of the low back" or "gunshot wound of the right thigh" describes the circumstance causing the injury, not the nature of the injury itself. When McClelland stated there was a gunshot wound of the left temple, he was clearly describing, as you pointed out, his belief there was an entrance wound in the left temple. As you have shown, his description in his WC testimony of a massive wound to the rear of JFK's head is something very basic that Pat Speer should know, and proves he is not above playing fast and loose with the evidence.
  17. Translated: Tom has nothing to back up his statement.
  18. How dare you accuse me of LN tactics! I believe the rules on this forum are quite simple. If you wish to state something as true, ie. Perry stating the bullet travelled horizontally between the trachea and the wound in the throat, you should be willing to back up your statement with evidence, if so requested. YOU stated it, not me, so YOU back it up. Capiche?
  19. Tom, there are a lot of people reading this who may not have seen the quote I requested before. Is it really that difficult to supply this quote?
  • Create New...