Choose Search Type

Display results as :

Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Charles Givens Arrests
Today at 8:08 pm by Hugh Jorgan

» ROKC Art Gallery
Yesterday at 5:00 pm by Goban Saor

»  Oswald's CIA 201 File
Yesterday at 10:52 am by Steve Thomas

» Willing To Make Some Phone Calls Here in The States
Yesterday at 8:43 am by Terry W. Martin

» More Greg Bashing From Hargrove
Tue 12 Dec 2017, 3:46 am by Paul Francisco Paso

» the Ed Forum and the shutting down of threads
Mon 11 Dec 2017, 7:05 pm by Terry W. Martin

» More Garbage
Mon 11 Dec 2017, 6:30 pm by Terry W. Martin

» More Key Figures from LHOCW
Mon 11 Dec 2017, 6:07 pm by Terry W. Martin

» Joe Rodiguez Molina
Sun 10 Dec 2017, 12:12 pm by barto

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking digg  Social bookmarking delicious  Social bookmarking reddit  Social bookmarking stumbleupon  Social bookmarking slashdot  Social bookmarking yahoo  Social bookmarking google  Social bookmarking blogmarks  Social bookmarking live      

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


free forum

Back of Head Wound Debate at the Ed Forum

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Back of Head Wound Debate at the Ed Forum

Post by Guest on Mon 30 Dec 2013, 1:34 am

Posted today at the Ed. Forum by Robert Prudhomme in response to Andric Perez:


"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 (sic)--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."


Back to top Go down

Re: Back of Head Wound Debate at the Ed Forum

Post by Guest on Mon 30 Dec 2013, 1:35 am

Location of cerebellum:


Back to top Go down

Re: Back of Head Wound Debate at the Ed Forum

Post by Guest on Sat 18 Jan 2014, 9:40 am

I don't think MR. Speer realizes that a wound on the back of the head doesn't have to be low to call into question the authenticity of the autopsy photos. I agree with him that most of the early witness statements place the wound in the upper rather than lower back of the head. The problem Mr. Speer doesn't want to admit is that this wound in the upper right back of the head was seen at Bethesda as well and is nowhere to be seen in the back of the head photos.


Back to top Go down

Re: Back of Head Wound Debate at the Ed Forum

Post by Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum