The Trach Incision -

[Tom Neal]

11 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

I mean, if you can't do it.....

LN tactics?

I don't see you supplying any DIFFERENT info...

Is it too difficult to answer my questions? Of course, if you can't do it...

[Tom Neal]

Same old Bob. Ask him a question that he refuses to answer and he then demands *I* prove my answer...

BTW, what do you think your idea that the number of icons above the knot in JFK's tie don't match the FBI photo indicates? That the tie nick was caused by something exiting through his shirt?

[Robert Prudhomme]

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?

[Tom Neal]

10 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

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?

Attempting to evade a question by sending the poser off to defend himself is a STANDARD LN tactic. This is exactly what you just did.

I've sent this info to you before, and as stated above, you just ignore because it conflicts with your theory. Are you telling me that if I posted it *THIS TIME* you'd actually admit it's true? You've never responded to these same questions, yet YOU continue to post the same old theory. Why don't YOU prove it?

How dare YOU get irate quoting non-existent rules to me. You stated the trajectory was deflected downward a "few" degrees. If you believe your own rule, why do you refuse to back that up with actual data that I have requested - trajectory angle from shooter and trajectory angle from entrance wound to trachea or C3/C4 and then on to the trachea?

YOU don't follow your own rules, yet you expect me to?

YOU stated it - so YOU back it up. Capiche?

I'll check back tonight for your answer to my questions - I DID ask first...

Edited December 11, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Robert Prudhomme]

Translated: Tom has nothing to back up his statement.

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You also greatly exaggerate the consistency and reliability of the Parkland witnesses. I go through the early statements one by one in chapter 18d, and show how these doctors and nurses are not nearly as consistent or reliable as people would like us to believe. Dr. McClelland, for example, initially said the wound was "of the left temple" and told a newspaper reporter looking for evidence for a shot from the front that in his mind there was no evidence suggesting as much. His recollections then changed to match some of his co-workers.

 

Pat,

I have also gone through the list of witnesses at Parkland hospital and found that there was a near consensus in their early reports, that the gaping hole was in the right-rear of the head. (As a side-note, I once challenged you on misleading statements you'd made regarding a couple of these witnesses, and you ignored my challenges. I assumed because you could see I was right.)

When Dr. McClelland spoke of a left temple wound, he was surely speaking of an entrance wound. And he actually got that information from Dr. Jenkins:

"I'll tell you how that happened," Jenkins explained, "When Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, 'Where are his wounds?' And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my right hand, and was trying to take the President's temporal pulse, and I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left temple as the wound." (Gerald Posner, Case Closed". p. 313)

So the left-temple wound was a misunderstanding.

This is what McClelland said of the gaping wound to Arlen Specter at Parkland on 3/21/64:  (I don't know if there is a first-day affidavit from him.):

"...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...."

But nobody needs to trust me or Pat regarding this... read for yourselves the actual statements and how testimonies changed over time. Here's Dr. Aguilar's excellant summary of Parkland and Bethesda testimonies regarding the head wounds:

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

Interpreting Dr. McClelland saying the wound was "of the left temple" as proof that McClelland was not a BOH witness shows a man grasping at straws. It is obvious to anyone, except Pat Speer, that a wound "of the left temple" would mean that is where the bullet entered. Seeing a large exit wound in the right rear of JFK's head, it would be easy to assume the bullet had entered the left temple.

Will Pat show us what McClelland told the newspaper reporter regarding the BOH wound?

http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/V00-Y99/W20-W49/W34-/W34.00XA

Robert, that link is to the wrong thing.

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

When did the "EOP entrance wound" become an established fact like the hole in the back of the head, the back wound, and the throat wound? You guys are sure talking like it's a fact...

Tom,

You make a good point.

Based on numerous comments made by the autopsy docs, my understanding is that a bullet hole was found in the scalp but not in the skull. IIRC the dimensions of the hole was 6 x 15 mm, and it appeared that the bullet had skidded tangentially along the skull bone near the EOP, and actually appeared to have tunneled under the skin. This was mentioned in some testimony, at which point one of the commented that what they were about to discuss shouldn't be on the record.

The docs reported that the point on the skull where the bullet hit was on the margin of missing bone (what we call the Harper fragment), and the docs said they could see evidence of an entrance wound on that bone. (Yes, they did have the Harper fragment the night of the autopsy.)

Paul Seaton has collected several useful quotes regarding this topic:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/eop_entry/eop_desc.htm

Search for "tunnel" to see what I'm talking about.

This information supports the belief that I, Robert, and Pat share, that the bullet hit the EOP area tangentially, went down through the neck, and resulted in a missile of one kind or another exiting the throat.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

Robert, that link is to the wrong thing.

 

Just now, Robert Prudhomme said:

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.

Oh... sorry. I thought the links was supposed to be to a news article.

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

Interpreting Dr. McClelland saying the wound was "of the left temple" as proof that McClelland was not a BOH witness shows a man grasping at straws. It is obvious to anyone, except Pat Speer, that a wound "of the left temple" would mean that is where the bullet entered. Seeing a large exit wound in the right rear of JFK's head, it would be easy to assume the bullet had entered the left temple.

Will Pat show us what McClelland told the newspaper reporter regarding the BOH wound?

http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/V00-Y99/W20-W49/W34-/W34.00XA

Don't be ridiculous. McClelland initially described the one wound he saw and the one wound his colleagues believed to have been a tangential wound of both entrance and exit as being "of the left temple." And you'd like us to believe he was describing where he thought the bullet entered--even though he failed to observe such a wound--and that he'd completely forgot to mention that, oh yeah, there was a large wound of exit that he did see (and supposedly closely examined).

I've read dozens of articles on gunshot wounds in the UCLA medical archives, which contained numerous, probably hundreds, of autopsy protocols and reports in which gunshot wounds were described, and I never found a one in which a large wound of exit was described as a wound "of" the location the surgeon presumed the bullet to have entered. It just doesn't work that way. If a doctor is describing a wound on the back he doesn't call it a chest wound because he "thinks" it might have entered on the other side. If a doctor is describing a wound on the back of the neck he doesn't call it a throat wound because he "thinks" maybe it came from the front. His job is to describe what he did and observed. That's it. It follows then that McClelland thought the wound was of the temple--which is where it was, albeit on the right side, not left side. In this I suspect that he was probably confused from looking at Kennedy upside down.

When one looks at McCllelland's statements another problem becomes clear as well. He said he observed the wound while they were performing the tracheotomy, and he was standing at the head of the table, looking down into the hole on the skull. The position of Kennedy's body when they performed the trach incision is presented below. Could someone please explain how McClelland could closely observe a wound low on the back of Kennedy's head while Kennedy was in this position, from a viewpoint at the head of the table?

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Pat Speer said:

Could someone please explain how McClelland could closely observe a wound low on the back of Kennedy's head while Kennedy was in this position, from a viewpoint at the head of the table?

 

 

Here is Dr. McClelland showing the location of the wound:

Here is McClelland's drawing of the wound:

 

The right side of the wound could be observed even with JFK's head tilted far back.

 

 

 

[Micah Mileto]

10 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

When did the "EOP entrance wound" become an established fact like the hole in the back of the head, the back wound, and the throat wound? You guys are sure talking like it's a fact...

Everybody at the autopsy saw it, whether they care or do not care about maintaining the official story. The open-cranium photograph(s) may very well show it. If there was a hole in the back of the head, it couldn't have gone much farther below the level of the ears. That spot is reserved for the EOP wound, which poses equal or more of a problem than a rear blowout.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Micah Mileto

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.