Micah Mileto Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 8 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said: You bother me. What do the open-cranium photos represent? The top-back of the head, maybe with the chin resting on the chest, right? Looks like there should be more bone loss towards the left if the BOH wound is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 19 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said: Sorry, Pat, there is no reason for the morticians to create a hole in the back of the head. The hole was either there or it wasn't. If it was there it shows a shot from the front. If it wasn't, they would have had no need to create one. What you appear to be saying is that they made the hole to use the bits as filler elsewhere on the skull for cosmetic purposes. Really ? Nobody made a hole on the back of the head. No one I know disputes that the skull collapsed when the scalp was peeled back. Humes testified about this and never wavered. When the skull was reconstructed, moreover, it was reconstructed in such a way that the hole was on the back of the head. Several witnesses support this and I'm not aware of anyone disputing this, either. The question is whether the hole was in that location at the beginning of the autopsy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: You make it sound like the morticians moved a piece of bone from the back of the skull to the top of the skull. I find that laughable. Do you have any examples of morticians doing reconstructive surgery like that? As opposed to using standard reconstructive materials like plaster of paris, clay, wax, and wire? It makes a lot more sense that the reason the morticians left the hole in the back of the head is because there was no bone to put there. Because that bone fragment was in Dallas (or on its way there), and would not be found till the following day by Mr. Harper. This scenario is corroborated by the early testimonies of nearly every medical professional at Parkland, who said they saw a gaping hole in the back of the head, and some of whom said they saw cerebellum oozing out the hole. No one moved a bone, Sandy. The right side of the skull was shattered into multiple pieces. It fell to the table as the scalp was peeled back. The brain was removed with little or no cutting on the skull. When the skull was put back together, it was put back together in such a way that the hole was on the back of the head. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 On 12/7/2016 at 2:05 PM, Pat Speer said: At the time, neither Specter nor Perry knew that the transverse process of the spine had in fact been damaged. They thought that Perry's testimony ruled out that a bullet had ascended (or descended) within the neck. But we now know better. More evidence that your 45-degree trajectory is wrong. What caused the bullet to deflect downward towards vertical, and then upward to the horizontal so it could cut the trachea AND then exit at the spot you indicate? You didn't answer any of my questions... To quote you, "You are incorrect" regarding the trajectory angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 (edited) On 12/7/2016 at 4:32 PM, Pat Speer said: x-ray of three fragments Note: these fragments were purportedly used in the reconstruction of Kennedy's skull, and buried with him. Which one of these fragments are you claiming is the back of his skull as reported by Kinney and Hill? The size and shape of these fragments fit neither description by these two who certainly had a good look at them, and in Kinney's case, actually handled it. Obviously the bone fragment Kinney had is the same fragment Hill reported. All of the reports of the hole in the back of the head indicate it was round. The largest fragment in Pat Speer's photo is rectangular, and the others are far too small. Edited December 11, 2016 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 On 12/8/2016 at 8:35 PM, Robert Prudhomme said: If you lay a straight edge on this drawing, with one end touching the base of the skull and the other end passing between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings, you will find the edge passes through cervical vertebrae C3 and C4. The vicinity of C3/C4 is precisely where the Bethesda x-ray technician Jerrol Custer told the HSCA he recalled seeing "many fragments" on the x-rays of JFK's neck he recalled seeing. Skull bone is tough. A bullet could easily strike a tangential blow along the bottom of the skull, be deflected a few degrees and go on to hit the vertebrae. Bob, A "few" degrees? How many degrees are you proposing? 2 or 3? 25? 40? Use your straight edge and tell us what the angle from the back of the skull to the junction of C3/C4 happens to be. Now supply your proposed trajectory angle of depression. Subtract the angles. You won't get a "few" degrees. You guys who believe in a head entrance, throat exit, never provide any "details" such as the trajectory angle of depression from the shooter to the skull, or where the bullet "grazed" the skull. Even ignoring all of these issues you can't get the bullet, fragmented bullet, plastic tip, bone or anything else from even 45-degrees downward (which is too shallow an angle) to horizontal as stated by Perry regarding the trajectory from trachea to exit wound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 What proof is there that the projectile exiting JFK's throat was travelling on a horizontal plane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said: What proof is there that the projectile exiting JFK's throat was travelling on a horizontal plane? Not what I said. I said horizontal from the trachea to the throat wound. Malcolm Perry was QUITE clear on that. Of course it would continue along the same line after exiting the body... Edited December 11, 2016 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 Show me where Perry states this, Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said: Show me where Perry states this, Tom. You have got to be kidding. I've quoted him before to you, and you don't respond. You want ME to look it up and paste a quote again? I've quoted him before to you, and you don't respond. Why don't you "show me" where he says something different. What are you saying the angle was; 45 degrees? To quote your response to Speer; "You didn't answer my question." How many degrees in your "few"? Tell me a feasible trajectory angle from a shooter to your EOP entrance that only requires a "few" degrees downward deflection of his skull to hit C3/C4... Edited December 11, 2016 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 I mean, if you can't do it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 8 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said: 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? And I've sure there are even MORE who would like to see a statement that it wasn't horizontal. That would include me. Yes, it IS difficult. I don't have things organized to the degree that I can just go right to it. It could be in numerous places. Why should I let you sidetrack me to go find it - again - while you continue to ignore MY questions, yet expect me to answer yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now