Pat Speer- I am confused (so what else is new?)...re: JFK head wound

[Ken Davies]

Are verbatim, unsourced quotes from the National Enquirer now trumping sworn testimony from the person allegedly quoted?

What's next?

[John Crites]

Take the sworn testimony of the witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda. Sworn under oath, under laws of perjury and what do we got? What do so many of them say as to the back of the head wound? Sure there are variations, but too many refer to the back of the head.

Understanding that as the years go by, recollections may vary, interviews and statements will be taken out of context, or changed to render an author's point of view.

But testimony, the statements under oath - just too many times, too many witnesses. There was a blow out in the back of the head, a shot from the front.

OK, who all saw this at Bethesda? Forget about Parkland, no way!.

The Unites States Government declared (HSCA Vol 7) that everybody at Bethesda saw this.

[Andric Perez]

So, Andric, you are telling us that your main source of research material is the National Enquirer????

That

So, Andric, you are telling us that your main source of research material is the National Enquirer????

You can answer your own question by looking for an instance where I said National Enquirer was my "main" source of research material. Or you can save yourself some time and admit you made that up.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Andric Perez

[Robert Prudhomme]

Let me guess, you peruse the Star and the Globe, too? Or do you just parrot everything you read at patspeer.com?

Edited December 30, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Andric Perez]

Let me guess, you peruse the Star and the Globe, too? Or do you just parrot everything you read at patspeer.com?

What you are about to see will embarrass you to a great degree:

"The Parkland Hospital Our Heritage collection quotes Clark as having said, "My God, the whole right side of his head is shot off." Extracted from the same book cited by the National Enquirer: Link.

Now you are being forced to trash the the author of the book, or the Parkland Hospital's Our Heritage collection, or both.

After asking me if my main source is National Enquirer, you asked me if I get everything from patspeer.com. Make up your mind. What's my main source? Is it Allen Childs now? Or the Our Heritage collection?

Edited December 30, 2013 by Andric Perez

[Ken Davies]

The book's section quoted above does not say who claimed that Clark said that. In fact the article goes on to say that others heard Clark say two other things that are far different from this.
Clark's sworn testimony does not agree with the allegations in this book, by a doctor who was a second year med student at the time, and not directly involved in treating Kennedy. Jones points this out himself. He talks of seeing YELLOW roses on the floor of the presidential limo, as he was milling about outside the hospital.

If one weighs "evidence" how much weight would one place on these "recently" collected anecdotes?

[Robert Prudhomme]

From the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. William Kemp Clark, March 21, 1964:

"Mr. Specter - What did you observe the President's condition to be on your arrival there?

Dr. Clark - The President was lying on his back on the emergency cart. Dr. Perry was performing a tracheotomy. There were chest tubes being inserted. Dr. Jenkins was assisting the President's respirations through a tube in his trachea. Dr. Jones and Dr. Carrico were administering fluids and blood intravenously. The President was making a few spasmodic respiratory efforts. I assisted in withdrawing the endotracheal tube from the throat as Dr. Perry was then ready to insert the tracheotomy tube. I then examined the President briefly.

My findings showed his pupils were widely dilated, did not react to light, and his eyes were deviated outward with a slight skew deviation.

I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the floor, and the clothing of some of the people present. I would estimate 1,500 cc. of blood being present."

Seems to be a reliable source, Andric. And, being the director of neurological surgery at Parkland Hospital, I certainly hope Dr. Clark was capable of telling the back of the head from the right front, and cerebral tissue from that of the cerebellum.

[Andric Perez]

In the book Trauma Room 1, page 68, The aforementioned quote by Clark appears: "My God, the whole right side of the head is shot off". Link

Guess who authored that book?

Charles Crenshaw. Ever heard of him?

[Vince Palamara]

The whole right side includes the back of the head

[Pat Speer]

The whole right side includes the back of the head

Yep, but the "back of the head" crowd has been arguing for decades that ALL the Parkland witnesses claimed there was a large wound localized on the back of the head, PROVING the shot came from the front. Clark, the neurosurgeon, is their STAR witness. If he told his colleagues the wound involved the whole side of the head, as now seems evident, it's adios.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Look here, Andric, for someone who tells others not to "cherry pick", you certainly seem to practice this yourself a lot.

However, since you seem intent on "exposing" Dr. Clark, I will help you out in this regard. At the end of the discussion, we will see just how bizarre and twisted the evidence presented by the WC really is. The only question that will remain is, who is mad? Clark? Specter? Or has some serious tampering of testimony taken place in regards to Clark's WC testimony?

The last question can never be answered, as there was no counsel to speak on LHO's behalf. Anyways, let's look at what Dr. Clark had to say about JFK's wounds.

Early on in his testimony, Dr. Clark first describes the head wound to Arlen Specter. "This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." This clearly points to the back of the head, slightly to the right of the back of the head, and low in the back of the head. How do I know it is low? The presence of cerebellar tissue. The diagram below shows the location of the cerebellum

Well, I tried to post a diagram of the brain showing the location of the cerebellum but Surprise! Surprise! I seem unable to c/p anything. Anyways, the cerebellum is a tiny part of the brain at the very bottom of brain mass and at the very back of the brain, behind the brainstem. It would basically be almost directly beneath the location Commander Humes gives at the autopsy for the bullet entrance wound; beneath the external occipital protuberance.

Now, Andric, before you go running off saying that Dr. Clark must have been mistaken about the location of the large head wound and the presence of damaged cerebellar tissue, remember that this is the Parkland director of neurosurgery you are speaking of. Also remember that you seem to have no problem trusting his powers of observation when you feel he is referring to the right side of JFK's head when referring to the large wound. Who is the cherry picker here?

Next time we hear of the head wound Clark described as a "large, gaping wound", Specter is asking Clark if he feels it is an exit or entrance wound. This is where the BS really starts to pile up. Remember, this is a few months after the assassination, and there has been ample time to terrorize Clark into "getting with the program". Dr. Clark describes the large, gaping wound as being one of entrance, but also a "tangential wound". In other words, instead of striking JFK's skull squarely, Clark believed the bullet struck JFK's skull at an oblique angle, despite the Zapruder film showing JFK bent over slightly and the back of his head almost square on to a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Clark states that a bullet striking at an oblique angle would have to penetrate far more bone and thus would shed more energy, causing greater damage to the brain.

This is utter nonsense on Clark's part, and clearly something Clark has been coached on. First, this was a FMJ bullet and would have been more than capable of penetrating the skull. Second, if it did shed more energy than normal, it still would not have been able to cause a large gaping wound at the entrance site. Bullets just do not work like this. I have shot many deer in my time with both soft tipped and hollow point bullets. Oblique angles or not, there is ALWAYS a small entrance wound. Any large holes are ALWAYS towards the other side of the skull.

To make matters worse, Clark is describing how a large, gaping wound occurred that, according to the autopsy, did not exist (?)

The next we see of head wound discussion, Clark and Specter are discussing Dr. Perry's reference, at a press conference, to the throat wound possibly being a wound of entrance and the possibility this was responsible for the head wound. Clark responds, "He did not elaborate on this. One of the reporters with gestures indicated the direction that such a bullet would have to take, and Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head."

Top of his head??? Top of his frickin' head???? Something is clearly wrong here. Just a few minutes before this, Clark described the large gaping wound at the back of his head, not the top. I simply refuse to believe a man could rise to the position he did and make such a fantastic blunder as this. I think it very likely that Clark said "back of his head", not top of his head, and that his testimony was altered.

Proof of this is Arlen Specter's enthusiasm for there being a wound at the top of JFK's head, despite Dr. Clark quite clearly describing a wound at the back of JFK's head. Right out of the blue, Specter pops this little gem on Clark, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the President's head, with the brain protruding; did you observe any other hole or wound on the President's head?" to which Clark replied, "No sir; I did not."

NOWHERE in Dr. Clark's testimony does Clark describe a massive wound to the top of JFK's head, yet Specter makes this insane reference to something Clark never said, simply because it was part of Specter's script. Clark obviously knows this, and makes no attempt to divert Specter from what is obviously a predetermined course. Just how frightened was this man?

However, Dr. Clark decides, later on in his testimony, to go for broke and put the large wound at the back of JFK's head again.

"Mr. Specter - Dr. Clark, would your observations be consistent with some other alleged facts in this matter, such as the presence of a lateral wound measuring 15 x 6 mm on the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberant--that is to say, could such a hole have been present without your observing it?

Dr. Clark - Yes, in the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp above such a wound and lateral to it and the brief period of time available for examination--yes, such a wound could be present."

Thank you, Dr. Clark, for sneaking that one by Arlen Specter. Okay, let's see what he told us. The "alleged" bullet entrance wound is 2.5 cm. to the right of the EOP (that little knob in the centre of the lower part of the back of your head) and slightly above it. Obviously, "slightly" must be less than 2.5 cm (one inch) or this would have been assigned a number, too. Clark says "In the presence of this much destruction....above such a wound and lateral to it...". He basically is telling us that the large gaping wound at the right rear of JFK's head is "in the presence of" or very close to the entrance wound and is just above it and lateral to it. "Lateral" means on the same level but slightly more forward. By my estimation, this puts the large wound right where Clark said it was in the first place, "in the right posterior part". He has merely described it in such a manner as to not let Specter know he described it this way.

Next, we have Dr. Clark discussing what faculties JFK would have possessed, had he survived. "Just let me state that the loss of cerebrellar (sic) tissue would probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties." So, if the large wound was at the top of his head, how would the cerebellum have been hit, as it sits so low at the back of the brain? How would cerebellar material be protruding from the top of JFK's head? How did Clark know the cerebellum was even damaged?

Just to add insult to injury, Dr. Clark is called back to testify four days later. While discussing how it was possible for the Parkland doctors to have overlooked the back wound, he drops this gem, just to make sure there is no doubt in his mind just where the large head wound was.

"Dr. Clark - No, sir. Such a would could have been easily overlooked in the presence of the much larger wound in the right occipital region of the President's skull, from which considerable blood loss had occurred which stained the back of his head, neck and upper shoulders."

Last time I checked, the occipital bone was in the lower part of the back of the skull.

[Pat Speer]

Are verbatim, unsourced quotes from the National Enquirer now trumping sworn testimony from the person allegedly quoted?

What's next?

To be clear, the National Enquirer was quoting a new book entitled We Were There. I've read a few reviews of this book and mistakenly believed it was a compilation of reports and statements by the Parkland witnesses. I now realize that the author of the book was a Parkland doctor in 1963, and that a few years back he asked those attending a reunion of the 1963 Parkland staff--primarily the students of the medical school--to jot down their recollections. This book comprises their recollections.

The interviews with the author I've found have pointed out how erratic the recollections were on certain points, while being consistent on others. From what I can gather, the recollections were consistent about the throat wound--where everyone remembered it as giving the appearance of an entrance wound--but erratic about the head wound.

I hope to read the book before commenting further.

[Pat Speer]

My comments in bold.

Look here, Andric, for someone who tells others not to "cherry pick", you certainly seem to practice this yourself a lot.

However, since you seem intent on "exposing" Dr. Clark, I will help you out in this regard. At the end of the discussion, we will see just how bizarre and twisted the evidence presented by the WC really is. The only question that will remain is, who is mad? Clark? Specter? Or has some serious tampering of testimony taken place in regards to Clark's WC testimony?

The last question can never be answered, as there was no counsel to speak on LHO's behalf. Anyways, let's look at what Dr. Clark had to say about JFK's wounds.

Early on in his testimony, Dr. Clark first describes the head wound to Arlen Specter. "This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." This clearly points to the back of the head, slightly to the right of the back of the head, and low in the back of the head. How do I know it is low? The presence of cerebellar tissue. The diagram below shows the location of the cerebellum.

This isn't true. There is nothing in Clark's testimony to suggest the wound was LOW in the back of the head. The Parkland witnesses thought the bullet entering Kennedy's throat exploded out the back of his head. This trajectory would take it through the cerebellum. Their thinking they saw cerebellum, therefore, doesn't suggest the hole they saw was at the level of the cerebellum. Dr. Peters, for one, said it did not. I spoke to James Jenkins on 11-22. He insisted that 1) there was no hole on the skull at the level of the cerebellum, and 2) the cerebellum suffered little damage. Dr. Clark took a quick look at the skull and brain. Jenkins held it in his hands. Who is more likely to be reliable on this issue?

Well, I tried to post a diagram of the brain showing the location of the cerebellum but Surprise! Surprise! I seem unable to c/p anything. Anyways, the cerebellum is a tiny part of the brain at the very bottom of brain mass and at the very back of the brain, behind the brainstem. It would basically be almost directly beneath the location Commander Humes gives at the autopsy for the bullet entrance wound; beneath the external occipital protuberance.

When you say "beneath" do you mean beneath the skull at the level of the entrance? Or beneath the entrance level, lower on the skull than the entrance level?

Now, Andric, before you go running off saying that Dr. Clark must have been mistaken about the location of the large head wound and the presence of damaged cerebellar tissue, remember that this is the Parkland director of neurosurgery you are speaking of. Also remember that you seem to have no problem trusting his powers of observation when you feel he is referring to the right side of JFK's head when referring to the large wound. Who is the cherry picker here?

Uhhh, not to speak for Andric, but I believe he picked out that bit for the same reason I did--to show Clark was erratic, not to show how he REALLY thought.

Next time we hear of the head wound Clark described as a "large, gaping wound", Specter is asking Clark if he feels it is an exit or entrance wound. This is where the BS really starts to pile up. Remember, this is a few months after the assassination, and there has been ample time to terrorize Clark into "getting with the program". Dr. Clark describes the large, gaping wound as being one of entrance, but also a "tangential wound". In other words, instead of striking JFK's skull squarely, Clark believed the bullet struck JFK's skull at an oblique angle, despite the Zapruder film showing JFK bent over slightly and the back of his head almost square on to a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Clark states that a bullet striking at an oblique angle would have to penetrate far more bone and thus would shed more energy, causing greater damage to the brain.

Yes, this is one of the most important observations made by a Parkland witness.. I decided to follow-up on Clark's observation, and concluded he was correct.

This is utter nonsense on Clark's part, and clearly something Clark has been coached on.

My God, Robert! Please please please do the homework! Clark said he thought it was a tangential wound in the 11-22 press conference, months before he ever spoke to Specter!

First, this was a FMJ bullet and would have been more than capable of penetrating the skull.

It has nothing to do with capability, it has to do with the angle of impact. Early books on wound ballistics often refer to the high incidence of gutter (or tangential) wounds related to FMJ ammunition.

Second, if it did shed more energy than normal, it still would not have been able to cause a large gaping wound at the entrance site. Bullets just do not work like this.

WRONG. The three large wounds on the slide below are all tangential wounds created by 6.5 mm FMJ ammunition.. DO THE READING.

I have shot many deer in my time with both soft tipped and hollow point bullets. Oblique angles or not, there is ALWAYS a small entrance wound. Any large holes are ALWAYS towards the other side of the skull.

To make matters worse, Clark is describing how a large, gaping wound occurred that, according to the autopsy, did not exist (?)

What? Of course such a wound existed. Clark and Humes BOTH described a large wound of scalp and skull. Such a wound, according to the top textbook on forensic pathology, written by the leader of the Clark Panel, along with a member of the Rockefeller Commission and HSCA Panel, is a wound of ENTRANCE.

The next we see of head wound discussion, Clark and Specter are discussing Dr. Perry's reference, at a press conference, to the throat wound possibly being a wound of entrance and the possibility this was responsible for the head wound. Clark responds, "He did not elaborate on this. One of the reporters with gestures indicated the direction that such a bullet would have to take, and Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head."

Thank you. This proves the point I made earlier. Clark thought the wound was at the TOP of the back of the head.

Top of his head??? Top of his frickin' head???? Something is clearly wrong here. Just a few minutes before this, Clark described the large gaping wound at the back of his head, not the top. I simply refuse to believe a man could rise to the position he did and make such a fantastic blunder as this. I think it very likely that Clark said "back of his head", not top of his head, and that his testimony was altered.

Proof of this is Arlen Specter's enthusiasm for there being a wound at the top of JFK's head, despite Dr. Clark quite clearly describing a wound at the back of JFK's head. Right out of the blue, Specter pops this little gem on Clark, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the President's head, with the brain protruding; did you observe any other hole or wound on the President's head?" to which Clark replied, "No sir; I did not."

NOWHERE in Dr. Clark's testimony does Clark describe a massive wound to the top of JFK's head, yet Specter makes this insane reference to something Clark never said, simply because it was part of Specter's script. Clark obviously knows this, and makes no attempt to divert Specter from what is obviously a predetermined course. Just how frightened was this man?

Not at all. The only time Clark spoke to the press on the issue was to complain about silly conspiracy theorists.

However, Dr. Clark decides, later on in his testimony, to go for broke and put the large wound at the back of JFK's head again.

"Mr. Specter - Dr. Clark, would your observations be consistent with some other alleged facts in this matter, such as the presence of a lateral wound measuring 15 x 6 mm on the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberant--that is to say, could such a hole have been present without your observing it?

Dr. Clark - Yes, in the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp above such a wound and lateral to it and the brief period of time available for examination--yes, such a wound could be present."

Thank you, Dr. Clark, for sneaking that one by Arlen Specter. Okay, let's see what he told us. The "alleged" bullet entrance wound is 2.5 cm. to the right of the EOP (that little knob in the centre of the lower part of the back of your head) and slightly above it. Obviously, "slightly" must be less than 2.5 cm (one inch) or this would have been assigned a number, too. Clark says "In the presence of this much destruction....above such a wound and lateral to it...". He basically is telling us that the large gaping wound at the right rear of JFK's head is "in the presence of" or very close to the entrance wound and is just above it and lateral to it. "Lateral" means on the same level but slightly more forward. By my estimation, this puts the large wound right where Clark said it was in the first place, "in the right posterior part". He has merely described it in such a manner as to not let Specter know he described it this way.

Next, we have Dr. Clark discussing what faculties JFK would have possessed, had he survived. "Just let me state that the loss of cerebrellar (sic) tissue would probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties." So, if the large wound was at the top of his head, how would the cerebellum have been hit, as it sits so low at the back of the brain? How would cerebellar material be protruding from the top of JFK's head? How did Clark know the cerebellum was even damaged?

Just to add insult to injury, Dr. Clark is called back to testify four days later. While discussing how it was possible for the Parkland doctors to have overlooked the back wound, he drops this gem, just to make sure there is no doubt in his mind just where the large head wound was.

"Dr. Clark - No, sir. Such a would could have been easily overlooked in the presence of the much larger wound in the right occipital region of the President's skull, from which considerable blood loss had occurred which stained the back of his head, neck and upper shoulders."

Last time I checked, the occipital bone was in the lower part of the back of the skull.

The "occipital" region does not necessarily relate to the occipital bone. It refers to the "occiput." It is routinely used to mean back of the head, which includes parietal bone as well as occipital bone.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/occiput

[Ray Mitcham]

My comments in bold.

Look here, Andric, for someone who tells others not to "cherry pick", you certainly seem to practice this yourself a lot.

However, since you seem intent on "exposing" Dr. Clark, I will help you out in this regard. At the end of the discussion, we will see just how bizarre and twisted the evidence presented by the WC really is. The only question that will remain is, who is mad? Clark? Specter? Or has some serious tampering of testimony taken place in regards to Clark's WC testimony?

The last question can never be answered, as there was no counsel to speak on LHO's behalf. Anyways, let's look at what Dr. Clark had to say about JFK's wounds.

Early on in his testimony, Dr. Clark first describes the head wound to Arlen Specter. "This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." This clearly points to the back of the head, slightly to the right of the back of the head, and low in the back of the head. How do I know it is low? The presence of cerebellar tissue. The diagram below shows the location of the cerebellum.

This isn't true. There is nothing in Clark's testimony to suggest the wound was LOW in the back of the head. The Parkland witnesses thought the bullet entering Kennedy's throat exploded out the back of his head. This trajectory would take it through the cerebellum. Their thinking they saw cerebellum, therefore, doesn't suggest the hole they saw was at the level of the cerebellum. Dr. Peters, for one, said it did not. I spoke to James Jenkins on 11-22. He insisted that 1) there was no hole on the skull at the level of the cerebellum, and 2) the cerebellum suffered little damage. Dr. Clark took a quick look at the skull and brain. Jenkins held it in his hands. Who is more likely to be reliable on this issue?

Well, I tried to post a diagram of the brain showing the location of the cerebellum but Surprise! Surprise! I seem unable to c/p anything. Anyways, the cerebellum is a tiny part of the brain at the very bottom of brain mass and at the very back of the brain, behind the brainstem. It would basically be almost directly beneath the location Commander Humes gives at the autopsy for the bullet entrance wound; beneath the external occipital protuberance.

When you say "beneath" do you mean beneath the skull at the level of the entrance? Or beneath the entrance level, lower on the skull than the entrance level?

Now, Andric, before you go running off saying that Dr. Clark must have been mistaken about the location of the large head wound and the presence of damaged cerebellar tissue, remember that this is the Parkland director of neurosurgery you are speaking of. Also remember that you seem to have no problem trusting his powers of observation when you feel he is referring to the right side of JFK's head when referring to the large wound. Who is the cherry picker here?

Uhhh, not to speak for Andric, but I believe he picked out that bit for the same reason I did--to show Clark was erratic, not to show how he REALLY thought.

Next time we hear of the head wound Clark described as a "large, gaping wound", Specter is asking Clark if he feels it is an exit or entrance wound. This is where the BS really starts to pile up. Remember, this is a few months after the assassination, and there has been ample time to terrorize Clark into "getting with the program". Dr. Clark describes the large, gaping wound as being one of entrance, but also a "tangential wound". In other words, instead of striking JFK's skull squarely, Clark believed the bullet struck JFK's skull at an oblique angle, despite the Zapruder film showing JFK bent over slightly and the back of his head almost square on to a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Clark states that a bullet striking at an oblique angle would have to penetrate far more bone and thus would shed more energy, causing greater damage to the brain.

Yes, this is one of the most important observations made by a Parkland witness.. I decided to follow-up on Clark's observation, and concluded he was correct.

This is utter nonsense on Clark's part, and clearly something Clark has been coached on.

My God, Robert! Please please please do the homework! Clark said he thought it was a tangential wound in the 11-22 press conference, months before he ever spoke to Specter!

First, this was a FMJ bullet and would have been more than capable of penetrating the skull.

It has nothing to do with capability, it has to do with the angle of impact. Early books on wound ballistics often refer to the high incidence of gutter (or tangential) wounds related to FMJ ammunition.

Second, if it did shed more energy than normal, it still would not have been able to cause a large gaping wound at the entrance site. Bullets just do not work like this.

WRONG. The three large wounds on the slide below are all tangential wounds created by 6.5 mm FMJ ammunition.. DO THE READING.

I have shot many deer in my time with both soft tipped and hollow point bullets. Oblique angles or not, there is ALWAYS a small entrance wound. Any large holes are ALWAYS towards the other side of the skull.

To make matters worse, Clark is describing how a large, gaping wound occurred that, according to the autopsy, did not exist (?)

What? Of course such a wound existed. Clark and Humes BOTH described a large wound of scalp and skull. Such a wound, according to the top textbook on forensic pathology, written by the leader of the Clark Panel, along with a member of the Rockefeller Commission and HSCA Panel, is a wound of ENTRANCE.

The next we see of head wound discussion, Clark and Specter are discussing Dr. Perry's reference, at a press conference, to the throat wound possibly being a wound of entrance and the possibility this was responsible for the head wound. Clark responds, "He did not elaborate on this. One of the reporters with gestures indicated the direction that such a bullet would have to take, and Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head."

The "occipital" region does not necessarily relate to the occipital bone. It refers to the "occiput." It is routinely used to mean back of the head, which includes parietal bone as well as occipital bone.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/occiput

That's what we have been saying all along Pat, the BACK of the head, not the top, or the side.

[Robert Prudhomme]

The tangential wounds shown in the photos are CLEARLY only on the surface of the skulls. You can CLEARLY see the path of the bullet as it creates a furrow in the skull bone. That is why they are known as "guttering" wounds. These wounds are NOTHING like what was described in the back of JFK's head. This wound was CLEARLY described as a circular wound with bone material blasted outwards.

Explain to us, keeping in mind that the back of JFK's head would have been squarely facing a sniper on the 6th floor, how JFK could have suffered a tangential bullet entrance wound 2.5 cm. to the right of the external occipital protuberance.

P.S. If it was a tangential wound, resembling the ones depicted in your photos, why does it not appear in the autopsy back of head photos, Pat? You can't have it both ways here. Was there or was there not a large, gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, whether an exit wound or tangential strike, as explained by Dr. Clark?

Edited December 30, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme