Robert Prudhomme Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 (edited) Can you explain to us, as briefly as possible, why such a wound, beginning in the occipital region of JFK's head and extending into the parietal region of JFK's head, is not visible in the official autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head, Andric? Edited January 1, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 WHO SAW THIS?ANY TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES IN DALLAS AND DC THAT SAW EXACTLY THIS? GOVERNMENT SAYS NO LARGE WOUND ANYWHERE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD REGION. INCLUDING THE BACK WOUND, WHO SAW EXACTLY THIS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) Can you explain to us, as briefly as possible, why such a wound, beginning in the occipital region of JFK's head and extending into the parietal region of JFK's head, is not visible in the official autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head, Andric? It is possible that Carrico is correct in stating the following in 1992: "We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound... and I think we were mistaken ... We saw a large wound on the right side of the head. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5364.0 Edited January 2, 2014 by Andric Perez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) duplicate. Edited January 2, 2014 by Andric Perez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Exactly, John. This is the crucial point; we can analyze the medical testimony all we want, but the fact is NO ONE described seeing what the autopsy photos show. Thus, we have two choices on what to believe. The first choice would be that the medical people at Parkland were so incompetent they not only misidentified the area where the wound was, they completely imagined a huge gaping wound in the head, since the photos show the head to be intact. The second choice, as many of us believe, is that the photos are simply not legitimate. Nothing about JFK's autopsy was normal. As Harold Weisberg noted, it was not worthy of a Bowery bum. We should be skeptical of everything associated with it, and that certainly includes the x-rays and photographs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Exactly, John. This is the crucial point; we can analyze the medical testimony all we want, but the fact is NO ONE described seeing what the autopsy photos show. Thus, we have two choices on what to believe. The first choice would be that the medical people at Parkland were so incompetent they not only misidentified the area where the wound was, they completely imagined a huge gaping wound in the head, since the photos show the head to be intact. The second choice, as many of us believe, is that the photos are simply not legitimate. Nothing about JFK's autopsy was normal. As Harold Weisberg noted, it was not worthy of a Bowery bum. We should be skeptical of everything associated with it, and that certainly includes the x-rays and photographs. Don't forget to complicate your second choice by adding that the side-of-the-head witnesses in Dealy Plaza were making stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Andric, do you have comprehension problems when you read the printed word? Can you not just answer a simple question? Can you explain to us, as briefly as possible, why such a wound, beginning in the occipital region of JFK's head and extending into the parietal region of JFK's head, is not visible in the official autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Davies Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 The Newmans were not entirely credible in their testimony. She claimed that JFK stood up in the car at the first shot and put his hands over his head. Anyone else ever claim that? Why would an objective person prefer their evidence over location of head wounds, over that of medical experts who viewed the wounds at a much closer distance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 The Newmans would have had a good look at JFK's head for, at the most, two seconds, before he was in Jackie's lap and the limo was too far away for the Newmans to see JFK. Is Andric seriously expecting us to believe that people who were unprepared for this encounter and totally without medical training can give us an accurate account of JFK's head wounds? If the Newmans had claimed they saw a large, gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, Andric would have dismissed them as totally unreliable, just as Pat Speer only finds the memories of octogenarians reliable when they happen to support his theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 The Newmans would have had a good look at JFK's head for, at the most, two seconds, before he was in Jackie's lap and the limo was too far away for the Newmans to see JFK. Is Andric seriously expecting us to believe that people who were unprepared for this encounter and totally without medical training can give us an accurate account of JFK's head wounds? If the Newmans had claimed they saw a large, gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, Andric would have dismissed them as totally unreliable, just as Pat Speer only finds the memories of octogenarians reliable when they happen to support his theories. Andric, do you have comprehension problems when you read the printed word? Can you not just answer a simple question? Can you explain to us, as briefly as possible, why such a wound, beginning in the occipital region of JFK's head and extending into the parietal region of JFK's head, is not visible in the official autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head? Robert, you need to stop insulting people and understand what they are saying. IF people believing the statements of the Parkland witnesses were accurate want to be taken seriously, they have to be consistent. The statements and actions of these witnesses--in particular the photos published by Groden--prove they did not think the wound was centered low in the occipital bone--where it would need to be for the Harper fragment to be occipital bone. And so, I ask you, point blank: was the Harper fragment occipital bone? And, if so, WHY didn't the Parkland witnesses see a hole in that location? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Pat, this has nothing to do with whether or not I believe the Harper fragment was occipital bone or not. There is no way I can prove or disprove the origin of the Harper fragment. For you to ask me to do such a thing is merely a ploy on your part to distract attention away from the very difficult questions I have posed of you and Andric. Dr. Kemp Clark's WC testimony clearly states the large, gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head to be in the occipital region of JFK's head. Contrary to what you say, I have provided medical definitions of "occipital region" that define it as an area of the head underlying the occipital bone. Dr. Clark, in later statements, describes the wound as being in the "occipital-parietal" region of JFK's head. Given the size of the wound described, this still places the wound, if it involves the occipital bone, well away from the top of the head. Despite which of Dr. Clark's descriptions of the location of the large, gaping wound in the back of JFK's head is the most accurate, they have one thing in common; they are not visible in the official back of the head autopsy photo. Care to explain this discrepancy to us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) Pat, this has nothing to do with whether or not I believe the Harper fragment was occipital bone or not. There is no way I can prove or disprove the origin of the Harper fragment. For you to ask me to do such a thing is merely a ploy on your part to distract attention away from the very difficult questions I have posed of you and Andric. Dr. Kemp Clark's WC testimony clearly states the large, gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head to be in the occipital region of JFK's head. Contrary to what you say, I have provided medical definitions of "occipital region" that define it as an area of the head underlying the occipital bone. Dr. Clark, in later statements, describes the wound as being in the "occipital-parietal" region of JFK's head. Given the size of the wound described, this still places the wound, if it involves the occipital bone, well away from the top of the head. Despite which of Dr. Clark's descriptions of the location of the large, gaping wound in the back of JFK's head is the most accurate, they have one thing in common; they are not visible in the official back of the head autopsy photo. Care to explain this discrepancy to us? I have 2 chapters on my website devoted to answering your questions. I have made hundreds of posts on this forum and elsewhere answering your questions. They are the same questions asked by others ad nauseum going back almost 10 years now. "How dare you?" "How can you?" Oy vey. It's like this. Two cars collide. The drivers die. The first responders on the scene write up some reports later that day. The majority of these reports say the cars crashed at the intersection of Elm and Olive. Well, that's it, you might say: the cars crashed at Elm and Olive. EXCEPT it turns out a traffic camera caught the crash on tape. It was at Elm and Maple. And there were witnesses to the crash who went on TV just after it occurred...saying it was at Elm and Maple. And there was a survivor to the crash who talked to a journalist...and told him it was at Elm and Maple. And there was a police photographer who photographed the crash scene...and created photos showing the crash to have occurred at...Elm and Maple. Now this is undoubtedly an odd occurrence. IF the photos have been faked it suggests someone was trying to hide that car b was responsible for the crash. So a local TV show takes it upon itself to show some of the first responders the crime scene photos, and gets the majority of them to say they'd been mistaken, and that the crash really happened at Elm and Maple. Now I think that it's logical to believe them. When there are two groups of witnesses, and one has photographic evidence to support them, I tend to believe them, You do not. Fine. Believe whatever you want. But future historians will undoubtedly conclude that the accident occurred at Elm and Maple. Edited January 2, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) And there was a police photographer who photographed the crash scene...and created photos showing the crash to have occurred at...Elm and Maple. Except that the photos were not prepared according to proper police protocol, and as it turns out the photos cannot be tracked back to the police photo lab because the lady at the police photo lab who was supposed to have developed the photos says these photos are not the ones she developed....Such photos would not be accepted in court, Pat. Edited January 2, 2014 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) The Newmans were not entirely credible in their testimony. She claimed that JFK stood up in the car at the first shot and put his hands over his head. Anyone else ever claim that? Why would an objective person prefer their evidence over location of head wounds, over that of medical experts who viewed the wounds at a much closer distance? She said raised up, not stood up. One Newman is not the Newmans. One Newman is not Zapruder One Newman is not Salyer. One Newman is not Ed Hoffman McClelland said he saw a wound in the left temple, which is kookier than to say JFK raised up at the time of the 1st shot. You are saying Carrico is not an objective person, as he said in 1992 that doctors were mistaken in their back-of-the-head recollections. Carrico is not a Newman. Edited January 2, 2014 by Andric Perez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) Pat, this has nothing to do with whether or not I believe the Harper fragment was occipital bone or not. There is no way I can prove or disprove the origin of the Harper fragment. For you to ask me to do such a thing is merely a ploy on your part to distract attention away from the very difficult questions I have posed of you and Andric. Dr. Kemp Clark's WC testimony clearly states the large, gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head to be in the occipital region of JFK's head. Contrary to what you say, I have provided medical definitions of "occipital region" that define it as an area of the head underlying the occipital bone. Dr. Clark, in later statements, describes the wound as being in the "occipital-parietal" region of JFK's head. Given the size of the wound described, this still places the wound, if it involves the occipital bone, well away from the top of the head. Despite which of Dr. Clark's descriptions of the location of the large, gaping wound in the back of JFK's head is the most accurate, they have one thing in common; they are not visible in the official back of the head autopsy photo. Care to explain this discrepancy to us? The Harper Fragment is giving Prudhomme headaches. Earlier, he sought to defend the possibility of this fragment being occipital, by stating that the occipital bone extends "well beyond" the top of the ear. Now he is backing off and simply dismissing discussion on this fragment as irrelevant. Edited January 2, 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