Robert Prudhomme Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Andric, before you embarrass yourself further, go back two posts and read what Pat Speer had to say. He believes that Clark described the wound accurately but was somehow mistaken about its location, along with a great number of other people. Clark clearly describes the large, gaping wound as being in the right rear of JFK's head; in the occipital region. Despite how Pat attempts to twist the facts, the occipital region is that part of the head overlying the occipital bone and, last time I checked, the occipital bone is solely in the back of the skull, not the top, and the majority of the occipital bone is in the lower part of the back of the skull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted January 1, 2014 Author Share Posted January 1, 2014 Ok, Now I AM super confused---have Andric and Pat been vindicated?!??!? Right when I was starting to go BACK to my original feelings on the matter (amended), THIS video pops up (from November 2013): SECRET SERVICE AGENT WINSTON LAWSON DESCRIBES JFK HEAD WOUND (Andric and Pat will LOVE this!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSZNaeP-0QY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted January 1, 2014 Author Share Posted January 1, 2014 http://vincepalamara.com/2014/01/01/secret-service-agent-winston-lawson-describes-jfk-head-wound-stillsvideo/ THE GRODEN VERSION??? THE FULL PICTURE- THE WOUND EXTENDED TO THE SIDE AND FORWARD, AS WELL: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 You're joking, I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Ok, Now I AM super confused---have Andric and Pat been vindicated?!??!? Right when I was starting to go BACK to my original feelings on the matter (amended), THIS video pops up (from November 2013): SECRET SERVICE AGENT WINSTON LAWSON DESCRIBES JFK HEAD WOUND (Andric and Pat will LOVE this!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSZNaeP-0QY Which show was that from, Vince? Hill, as you know has been pointing to a location above his ear for the last ten years or so, so Lawson's not alone in pointing to a location more consistent with the autopsy photos than the back of the head. I give their recent recollections some credence, moreover, seeing as Hill (at least until recently) was swearing at the same time that the single-bullet theory was nonsense, and Lawson (at least until recently) was swearing that the last two shots were bang-bang, neither of which supports the single-assassin scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 (edited) I thought we couldn't trust the memories of old people, Pat. Edited January 1, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted January 1, 2014 Author Share Posted January 1, 2014 Robert- not being a traitor LOL...just discovered this video tonight. Taken on its own, it does appear to support Pat and Andric (!!!)...but I am with you, brother. That said, I am still a little confused, although Pat's recent post cleared things up a little with his non-denial that the majority (but not all) of the Parkland folks stated that the back of the head was missing. I originally thought Pat WAS denying this, so it DID seem like shooting fish in a barrel to keep quoting doctors and their testimony to say"see??huh- what do you have to say about THAT??" Pat- here is the full length video (just posted) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsW_AZy2xHw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 (edited) Andric, before you embarrass yourself further, go back two posts and read what Pat Speer had to say. He believes that Clark described the wound accurately but was somehow mistaken about its location, along with a great number of other people. Clark clearly describes the large, gaping wound as being in the right rear of JFK's head; in the occipital region. Despite how Pat attempts to twist the facts, the occipital region is that part of the head overlying the occipital bone and, last time I checked, the occipital bone is solely in the back of the skull, not the top, and the majority of the occipital bone is in the lower part of the back of the skull. I posted a link to a series of definitions of the word "occipital" taken from a number of medical dictionaries. It doesn't mean overlying the occipital bone, no matter what you would like others to believe. It means "the back of the head" which comprises the occipital bone up to about the level of the top of the ear, and the parietal bones above that level and up to the vertex. Clark, apparently, believed the wound he saw involved both bones. For the 2 1/2 inch Harper fragment to have been occipital bone, as claimed by proponents of the "back of the head" religion, the wound would have to have been almost entirely occipital bone. There is NO evidence Clark thought the wound was that low on the back of the head, nor that ANY of the Parkland witnesses to comment on the wound location in 1963 or 1964 thought the wound was that low on the back of the head. This was something that developed later, after Tink Thompson commissioned a college kid to interpret where Dr. McClelland's testimony suggested the wound to have been located. (An interpretation, by the way, that McClelland would come to disavow.) In other words, the Parkland witnesses do not suggest the Harper fragment was occipital bone, and never did. This was a CT myth. There are plenty of LN myths. Well, this is a CT myth. (When you look at the following "back of the head" witnesses, please note how many of them place the majority of their hands below the level of the top of their ears. Now subtract O'Connor and Custer, who, as previously shown, were demonstrating the size of the defect from front to back noted after the brain had been removed.) SO...can we now agree that the "back of the head" witnesses do not support that the Harper fragment was occipital bone? Edited January 1, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Pat, if BS was music, you would be a three piece band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 (edited) http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=77195 http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/occipital+region+of+head Edited January 1, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 (edited) I posted a link to a series of definitions of the word "occipital" taken from a number of medical dictionaries. It doesn't mean overlying the occipital bone, no matter what you would like others to believe. It means "the back of the head" which comprises the occipital bone up to about the level of the top of the ear, We are finding some consensus now. Earlier in this thread, Mr. Prudhomme said, "P.S. You obviously don't know the first thing about anatomy, Pat. In the centre of the back of the head, the occipital bone extends well above the level of the ears." Edited January 1, 2014 by Andric Perez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Pat changes his story daily. At one point, he did not think the narrow centre portion of the occipital bone extended above the ears, which it does. However, the occipital bone does NOT extend to the top of the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 (edited) Pat changes his story daily. At one point, he did not think the narrow centre portion of the occipital bone extended above the ears, which it does. However, the occipital bone does NOT extend to the top of the head. Didn't Clark believe this wound included damage to the parietal region as well? Edited January 1, 2014 by Andric Perez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Show us the WC testimony, if you believe he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 (edited) Show us the WC testimony, if you believe he did. At one point in his WC testimony Clark was explaining that JFK may have had trouble reading had he survived. He mentioned the lost parts of brain that he thought would cause this reading deficit: "The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes would have been of specific importance. This would have led to a visual field deficit, which would have interfered in a major way with his ability to read, not the interpretation of reading matter per se, but the acquisition of information from the printed page. This is consistent with Clark's words the day of the assassination, when he wrote: "There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the skull appeared gone at brief examination . The previously described lacerated brain was present. By this time an EKG was hooked up. There was no electrical activity of the heart and no respiratory effort - He was pronounced dead at 1300 hrs by me. W. Kemp Clark 22 Nov 1963 1615 hrs - Edited January 1, 2014 by Andric Perez 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