~~ Supposed "LBOH wound witness" Dr Clark's WC testimony ~~
eca...@tx.rr.com
AK OFFERS AS A LBOH WOUND WITNESS:
"6). Dr. Clark: Head wound was "LARGE, gaping loss
of tissue" located at the "BACK OF HIS HEAD...
principally on his right side."
Yet here's Clark's testimony under oath which is
dramatically different:
----- ON: -----
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. (6 H 20)
Mr. SPECTER: 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?
Dr. CLARK. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER: Did you observe, to make my question
very specific, a bullet hole or what appeared to
be a bullet hole in the posterior scalp, approximately
2.5 cm. laterally to the right, slightly above the
external occipital protuberant, measuring 15 by 6 mm.
Dr. CLARK. No, sir; I did not. This could easily
have been hidden in the blood and hair.
Mr. SPECTER: Did you observe any bullet wounds or any
other wound on the back side of the President?
Dr. CLARK. No, sir; I did not.
----- OFF -----
As for Aguilar's other LBOH wound witnesses the closer
you look, the more they come unraveled.. Clint Hill's
account has been widely misused even after he came out
in National Geographic and clarified his position
which overly enthusiastic CTers had cranked up several
notches. Hill explained the gaping wound was indeed
over the right ear.
NOW COMETH ONE EACH Saundra K. Spencer. With all due
respect, she is not taken any more seriously than I
would be if I said I had pictures of Oswald on the 6F
doing the actual shooting but they.. ( gULp ) are now
"missing."
(Shades of Travis Linn, Roger Craig, Ron Jenkins.)
Yeah, right. Oh yeah and Gordon Arnold's wants equal
time.. It seems his camera footage is also "missing."
Stolen by a guy with "a gun that looked this big."
HOWEVER my guess is just about all of the Parkland
Hospital (PH) witnesses meant well.. But virtually all
of there recollections have been used to deceive naive
newcomers and even pretty sharp new researchers.. The
later of these two minuscule factions catch on in
short order but those with their handy predetermined
"Oswald was innocent" agenda seldom get it.
There was no LBOH wound.
Here's what the PH people saw and why they were
mistaken for many years.. (Most have recanted after
seeing all the photographic proof btw):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/480a57a2052cdd7a
Ed Cage
1148Sep1907
John Fiorentino
Good post Ed.
John F.
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1190243331.3...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Ed:
>
>Good post Ed.
>
>John F.
You think so, eh, John? Then you must not know Clark's testimony very
well. Note two things in what Cage quoted below,
First and foremost, he quotes Spector asking Clark about what he saw
when he first saw the President; then Cage quotes this ONE line:
"CLARK: The President was lying on his back on the emergency cart. (6
H 20)"
Then he goes on, without ellipses indication chunks of missing
testimony. and quotes the Spector question about the top of the head.
But WAIT! What was Clark's COMPLETE REPLY to that FIRST question?
You should know this, writing a book and all.
Ed left out Clark's description of the head wound. Here is Clark's
COMPLETE answer tio that first question from his testimony:
QUOTE
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
wa^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.
As I was examining the President's wound, I felt for a carotid pulse
and felt none. Therefore, I began external cardiac massage and asked
that a cardiotachioscope be connected. Because of my position it was
difficult to administer cardiac massage. However, Dr. Jones stated
that he felt a femoral pulse.
END QUOTE
Gee, WHY didn't Cage include Clark's actual reply and description in
his "good post"?
Worthy of Posner, imo, but not even Posner did that one! Talk about
selective quoting and mispresenting ... actually misrepresenting ...
testimony!
Later, indeed, Spector does ask Clark:
"Now you described the massive wound at the top of the President's
head with the brain protruding ...."
Gee, from the question, we can tell that means Clark has already been
asked and testified about the wound he saw. What was it he said? Oh
yes, I included it in Clark's reply to Spector above ... Ed
conveniently snipped that part out ... and Clark, as cited above,
clearly describes a wound in the back of the head.
The question where Spector asked about the "massive wound at the top
of the President's head" came MUCH later ... Spector simply misspoke
and Clark didn't bother to correct him .... for we KNOW that NOWHERE
EVER does Clark describe a "massive wound in the top of the
President's head" ... the only head wound descriptions he gives are in
keeping with the one he had indeed already given in his testimony ...
as *I* included in the complete answer above ... and which Cage
snipped out!
And you pat that sort of shenanigan on the back.
Shame on Cage ... and you too.
Barb
John Fiorentino
Coming from you this really funny, right Ms. Redlich?
And the wound WAS INDEED WHERE?.......ooops
Why right where the photos show it, and the X-rays, and the examination of
same by Drs. too numerous to mention.
Right?
I'm afraid you'll have to send out the flying monkeys on this one.
John F.
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b4b4f3hugdaogd27r...@4ax.com...
John Canal
>
>Barb:
>
>Coming from you this really funny, right Ms. Redlich?
>
>And the wound WAS INDEED WHERE?.......ooops
>
>Why right where the photos show it,
Oh really? According to the Dox dwg (and McA, Cage, and the Clark/HSCA experts),
the great, 13 cm x 17 cm, top/right/front, blow-out defect was just slightly
forward of the entry defect as seen in the BOH photo that you trumpet so loudly.
If it was, there, then why is the scalp/hair untorn/undamaged, if not
well-groomed, when the autopsy docs reported and testified that the large exit
defect was "devoid" of scalp??????????????????????????
If you trumpet the photo to support your no-BOH wound position, then you should
know enough about it to explain the conflict I just told you about.
Now, your buddys, Cage and McA are either in the process of punting on or have
already punted on my request to explain that conflit....do you want to throw
them a rope?....or will you punt as well...heck, or you could add a chapter to
you book, like perhaps, "Punting made Easy".
How about it, JF?
Any lurkers out there? 10 to 1, he doesn't offer a real explanation....same bet
with Cage.
John Canal
and the X-rays, and the examination of
>same by Drs. too numerous to mention.
>
>Right?
>
>I'm afraid you'll have to send out the flying monkeys on this one.
>
>John F.
[....]
Barb Junkkarinen
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Barb:
>
>Coming from you this really funny, right Ms. Redlich?
>
>And the wound WAS INDEED WHERE?.......ooops
>
>Why right where the photos show it, and the X-rays, and the examination of
>same by Drs. too numerous to mention.
>
>Right?
>
>I'm afraid you'll have to send out the flying monkeys on this one.
If you can't see what he did ... and you approve of it (you're
certainly making light of it, trying to distract/divert from it) ....
your book should be a real dilly. Pretty sad you can't even
acknowledge what he did here, imo.
What is it McAdams said?
QUOTE
>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 04:51:26 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>McAdams) wrote:
>
>[.....]
>>
>>When ignoring evidence is necessary to make you case, you don't have
>>much of a case.
END QUOTE
Ignoring evidence is bad enough, mispresenting evidence should be
intolerable to everyone.
Barb :-)
garag...@gmail.com
Ed,
Your just so precious and so priceless! When Barb told me about your silly
post, I almost fell on the floor laughing. What? Did you forget we have
Clark's unexpurgated testimony at our fingertips, and not just the
sanitized version you present? Hell, if I'd written your post for you to
ridicule you, I could scarcely have done a better job.
We'll certainly know to trust you with testimony in future, won't we?
But don't despair. There are a group who will believe your omissions and
bowdlerizations are the pinnacle of erudition and scholarship. Among them
are people like John Fiorentino, John McAdams, Jean Davison, Ken Rahn,
Larry Sturdivan and perhaps even Michael Bden, too. With allies like that,
and with your patriotism shining through your posts like a beacon of
freedom, who the hell cares what the truth is?
I mean, what's more important, to love truth or love one's country? We
know where you stand on that question, my fellow American!
Gary
John McAdams
<garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course, for Gary, "patriot" means "lying scum."
We moderators would not have passed it if Gary had actually said that,
but we all know what he *means.*
For Gary, "patriot" is a slur.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
garag...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2007 07:46:52 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
>
> >Barb:
>
> >Coming from you this really funny, right Ms. Redlich?
>
> >And the wound WAS INDEED WHERE?.......ooops
>
> >Why right where the photos show it, and the X-rays, and the examination of
> >same by Drs. too numerous to mention.
>
> >Right?
>
> >I'm afraid you'll have to send out the flying monkeys on this one.
>
> If you can't see what he did ... and you approve of it (you're
> certainly making light of it, trying to distract/divert from it) ....
> your book should be a real dilly. Pretty sad you can't even
> acknowledge what he did here, imo.
>
> What is it McAdams said?
>
> QUOTE
>
> >McAdams) wrote:
>
> >[.....]
>
> >>When ignoring evidence is necessary to make you case, you don't have
> >>much of a case.
>
> END QUOTE
>
> Ignoring evidence is bad enough, mispresenting evidence should be
> intolerable to everyone.
>
> Barb :-)
>
Warrenista chaps and chapettes do, and so when they render testimony
in an especially patriotic manner, who are you, of all people, to
judge them wanting?
And how better can one prove his patriotism than to have Kemp Clark
saying the wound was not in the back of the head, but the top?
If only you were a patriot; then you, too, would know that love of
country trumps love of truth, and it always will.
: ~ ?
Gary
John McAdams
eca...@tx.rr.com
Clark's sworn WC testimony which you appear to
have not even opened:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a6d742931fd24911?dmode=source
Here's most of what it said if you missed it and
please note Clark's testimony under oath which is
dramatically different:
----- ON: -----
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. (6 H 20)
Mr. SPECTER: 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?
Dr. CLARK. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER: Did you observe, to make my question
very specific, a bullet hole or what appeared to
be a bullet hole in the posterior scalp, approximately
2.5 cm. laterally to the right, slightly above the
external occipital protuberant, measuring 15 by 6 mm.
Dr. CLARK. No, sir; I did not. This could easily
have been hidden in the blood and hair.
Mr. SPECTER: Did you observe any bullet wounds or any
other wound on the back side of the President?
Dr. CLARK. No, sir; I did not.
` ----- OFF -----
` >>> EARTH TO CANAL: There was no LBOH wound <<<
` Just like you said:
` "Once again, it wasn't really a "LBOH" wound."
` - John Canal, April 14, 2007, 10:21pm
Here's what the PH people saw and why they were
mistaken for many years.. (Most have recanted after
seeing all the photographic proof btw):
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html
See this example in the above slide presentation:
X_AUT_2.jpg
The autopsy photos also agree. See:
autop04.jpg
Yet conversely here's what the PH Doctors saw:
jfk06.jpg
` ----- OFF -----
Canal about these 2 items you keep avoiding:
` (1)
THE TIRED OF TYPING THE EXTRA LETTER "L" ISSUE.
You claim the reason you changed "LBOH wound" to
"BOH wound" is because:
CANAL'S EXPLANATION:
"..I called it a "LBOH" wound a few times and,
when I got tired of typing the extra letter "L",
I called it a "BOH wound"."
OFF
("..when I got tired of typing the extra letter "L",
I called it a "BOH wound" explains Mr Canal)
` (2)
THE DON'T ASK ME WHERE TO FIND THAT CITE ISSUE
Your erroneous claim that Grossman "and Clark lifted
his [JFK's] head to get a good look at the wounds.
Golly gee wiz, that's when they saw the BOH wound.
Don't ask me where to find that cite..." - John Canal
"Don't ask me where to find that cite" sez Canal.
` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
John Canal I'll be blunt with you. The reason you
have to so frequently resort to starting new threads
virtually "begging" others to share BOH and LBOH
wound dialog with you is that it is an unrewarding
and futile experience. (See above examples) Here
comes the blunt part Mr Canal: You are unreachable.
(I have often wondered why you and Barb don't
just email each other.)
Ed
1113Sep2007
On Sep 20, 8:55 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <46f24...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
John Fiorentino
Anyway, a friend of mine told me to be nice to you. So, I will try.
I doubt we'll ever agree on much, but I will do my best to remain a
gentleman.
It's nice to have friends Barb. ;-)
John F.
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hm75f35ddap9qttji...@4ax.com...
Anthony Marsh
> In article <46f2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>> Barb:
>>
>> Coming from you this really funny, right Ms. Redlich?
>>
>> And the wound WAS INDEED WHERE?.......ooops
>>
>> Why right where the photos show it,
>
> Oh really? According to the Dox dwg (and McA, Cage, and the Clark/HSCA experts),
> the great, 13 cm x 17 cm, top/right/front, blow-out defect was just slightly
> forward of the entry defect as seen in the BOH photo that you trumpet so loudly.
> If it was, there, then why is the scalp/hair untorn/undamaged, if not
> well-groomed, when the autopsy docs reported and testified that the large exit
> defect was "devoid" of scalp??????????????????????????
>
Please show us their diagram of WHERE they saw that the head was devoid
of scalp.
Barb Junkkarinen
>The answer is "yes" Mr Canal. I already posted
>Clark's sworn WC testimony which you appear to
>have not even opened:
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a6d742931fd24911?dmode=source
>
>Here's most of what it said if you missed it and
>please note Clark's testimony under oath which is
>dramatically different:
You actually have the gall to repost your mispresented, mangled ...
downright misrepresented version of Clark's testimony **again**!!
OY!
Perhaps, since you note Spector asking about the massive wound Clark
had already described in the "top" of the head ... you could find the
passage in Clark's testimony where he describes a wound in the "top"
of the head and please quote it here.
I'm not familiar with Clark ever saying any such thing.
Here's your chance, Ed. :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Barb:
>
>Anyway, a friend of mine told me to be nice to you. So, I will try.
>
>I doubt we'll ever agree on much, but I will do my best to remain a
>gentleman.
>
>It's nice to have friends Barb. ;-)
Yes it is. And, I hope, none of mine, would give me a pass on
condoning anything like the blatant mispresenting of evidence like is
so painfully obvious in Cage's "good post."
Do YOU think Clark described a wound in the "top" of JFK's head?
Barb Junkkarinen
Must have been an interesting discussion between you and Peter. Of
course there would not have been any discussion, and Peter may have
never noticed, when you initiated using patriot as a slur ... against
Gary, of course, back in July.
>
>For Gary, "patriot" is a slur.
And what was it when you called Gary a patriot in a post a few months
ago? You titled a thread, "Gary Aguilar, patriot" in July ... and it
was hardly meant to be complimentary to Gary.
You used patriot as a slur against Gary. Now you complain about him.
Barb
garag...@gmail.com
> On 20 Sep 2007 21:35:01 -0400, "garyNOS...@gmail.com"
"Lying scum" is your invention, isn't it?
I doubt you'd be giving a pass on it, if it weren't one of your
favorite expressions.
And for you, "Warren skeptic" is a slur.
Gary
Martin Shackelford
"patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:46f320e8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> On 20 Sep 2007 22:15:35 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
> <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Barb:
>>
>> Anyway, a friend of mine told me to be nice to you. So, I will try.
>>
>> I doubt we'll ever agree on much, but I will do my best to remain a
>> gentleman.
>>
>> It's nice to have friends Barb. ;-)
>
> Yes it is. And, I hope, none of mine, would give me a pass on
> condoning anything like the blatant mispresenting of evidence like is
> so painfully obvious in Cage's "good post."
>
> Do YOU think Clark described a wound in the "top" of JFK's head?
>
Theoretically can something be both top AND back?
Especially when it starts on the top and extends to the back.
Please get out your skull drawings and draw a line for us which divides
top from back.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>> On 20 Sep 2007 22:15:35 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
>> <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Barb:
>>>
>>> Anyway, a friend of mine told me to be nice to you. So, I will try.
>>>
>>> I doubt we'll ever agree on much, but I will do my best to remain a
>>> gentleman.
>>>
>>> It's nice to have friends Barb. ;-)
>>
>> Yes it is. And, I hope, none of mine, would give me a pass on
>> condoning anything like the blatant mispresenting of evidence like is
>> so painfully obvious in Cage's "good post."
>>
>> Do YOU think Clark described a wound in the "top" of JFK's head?
>>
>
>Theoretically can something be both top AND back?
>Especially when it starts on the top and extends to the back.
>Please get out your skull drawings and draw a line for us which divides
>top from back.
Of course something can be top and back ... and also front and side as
well.. Get out your thinking cap and apply it to the issue here ....
where CLARK described the wound HE SAW. And he described it a s a
wound in the back of the head. He decribed no wound in the top of the
head ... massive or otherwise.
As for back and top ... google yourself some anatomical charts,
perhaps that will help you. And note that the top of the back side of
something is different than the back of the top side of something.
Which has nothing to do with Clark's description either, but it may be
another self-generated nit you're working up for picking.<g>
Barb :-)
John McAdams
There is a difference between using a term the way Gary does, and
using it ironically, as I did.
Why don't you post the context where I called Gary a "patriot" so that
people can see the context?
>>
>>For Gary, "patriot" is a slur.
>
>And what was it when you called Gary a patriot in a post a few months
>ago? You titled a thread, "Gary Aguilar, patriot" in July ... and it
>was hardly meant to be complimentary to Gary.
>
Because patriot does not mean the same thing to me that it means to
Gary.
It's also the case that we moderators have always passed Gary calling
people "patriots" because, while we all know that it means "lying
scum" to Gary, ON ITS FACE it's not a slur.
>You used patriot as a slur against Gary. Now you complain about him.
>
Actually, I used the term ironically.
But since we moderators always pass Gary saying that so and so is a
"patriot," you have no reason to gripe that I used the term to
describe him, do you?
.John
--
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I think Gary hates those "patriots" who are referred to in the saying that
>"patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
It was Dr. Johnson who said that.
But no, Gary hates those "patriots" who produce testimony that he
finds inconvenient.
--
John McAdams
<garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 20, 6:36 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 20 Sep 2007 21:35:01 -0400, "garyNOS...@gmail.com"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >I mean, what's more important, to love truth or love one's country? We
>> >know where you stand on that question, my fellow American!
>>
>> Of course, for Gary, "patriot" means "lying scum."
>>
>> We moderators would not have passed it if Gary had actually said that,
>> but we all know what he *means.*
>>
>> For Gary, "patriot" is a slur.
>>
>
>"Lying scum" is your invention, isn't it?
>
It's your concept, Gary.
When you call somebody a patriot, you really mean "lying scum."
>I doubt you'd be giving a pass on it, if it weren't one of your
>favorite expressions.
>
>And for you, "Warren skeptic" is a slur.
>
Actually, no "Warren skeptic" is an acceptable term, although it is
biased (kind of like calling a "liberal" a "progressive"). But it's
not a slur.
.John
--
Barb Junkkarinen
McAdams) wrote:
ROTFL!
>
>Why don't you post the context where I called Gary a "patriot" so that
>people can see the context?
Feel free.
>
>
>>>
>>>For Gary, "patriot" is a slur.
>>
>>And what was it when you called Gary a patriot in a post a few months
>>ago? You titled a thread, "Gary Aguilar, patriot" in July ... and it
>>was hardly meant to be complimentary to Gary.
>>
>
>Because patriot does not mean the same thing to me that it means to
>Gary.
Oh I see! YOU know what Gary means by a term .... this must be like
you deem the terms used by the Parkland doctors, for example, not to
mean what they clearly mean to anyo other person with a functional
knowledge of medical terminology and anatomy.
>
>It's also the case that we moderators have always passed Gary calling
>people "patriots" because, while we all know that it means "lying
>scum" to Gary, ON ITS FACE it's not a slur.
Why is it okay for a person to constantly attribute something to
someone that the person has never said ... ad infinitum?
>
>
>>You used patriot as a slur against Gary. Now you complain about him.
>>
>
>Actually, I used the term ironically.
Well, perhaps Gary sees his use as irony too.
Wouldn't that just be ironic. ;-)
>
>But since we moderators always pass Gary saying that so and so is a
>"patriot," you have no reason to gripe that I used the term to
>describe him, do you?
Me, gripe? Never. :-)))) But I do notice things. Especially obvious
things. So so others.
Barb :-)
>
>.John
Barb Junkkarinen
McAdams) wrote:
>On 21 Sep 2007 13:14:49 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
><msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>I think Gary hates those "patriots" who are referred to in the saying that
>>"patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
>
>It was Dr. Johnson who said that.
>
>But no, Gary hates those "patriots" who produce testimony that he
>finds inconvenient.
Ah, so now you know he "hates" too. Crystal balls?
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
McAdams) wrote:
>On 21 Sep 2007 13:13:32 -0400, "garyN...@gmail.com"
><garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 20, 6:36 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>> On 20 Sep 2007 21:35:01 -0400, "garyNOS...@gmail.com"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >I mean, what's more important, to love truth or love one's country? We
>>> >know where you stand on that question, my fellow American!
>>>
>>> Of course, for Gary, "patriot" means "lying scum."
>>>
>>> We moderators would not have passed it if Gary had actually said that,
>>> but we all know what he *means.*
>>>
>>> For Gary, "patriot" is a slur.
>>>
>>
>>"Lying scum" is your invention, isn't it?
>>
>
>It's your concept, Gary.
The phrase is your invention, John.
>
>When you call somebody a patriot, you really mean "lying scum."
Ah, those crystal balls again ... and when the Parkland docs said back
of the head or right rear of the head, they really menat top of the
head.
We get it.
Barb :-)
John McAdams
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:27:19 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>McAdams) wrote:
>
>>On 21 Sep 2007 13:14:49 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>><msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I think Gary hates those "patriots" who are referred to in the saying that
>>>"patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
>>
>>It was Dr. Johnson who said that.
>>
>>But no, Gary hates those "patriots" who produce testimony that he
>>finds inconvenient.
>
>Ah, so now you know he "hates" too. Crystal balls?
>
He doesn't bother to conceal it, Barb.
.John
--
John McAdams
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:29:26 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>McAdams) wrote:
>
>>On 21 Sep 2007 13:13:32 -0400, "garyN...@gmail.com"
>><garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 20, 6:36 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>>> On 20 Sep 2007 21:35:01 -0400, "garyNOS...@gmail.com"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >I mean, what's more important, to love truth or love one's country? We
>>>> >know where you stand on that question, my fellow American!
>>>>
>>>> Of course, for Gary, "patriot" means "lying scum."
>>>>
>>>> We moderators would not have passed it if Gary had actually said that,
>>>> but we all know what he *means.*
>>>>
>>>> For Gary, "patriot" is a slur.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Lying scum" is your invention, isn't it?
>>>
>>
>>It's your concept, Gary.
>
>The phrase is your invention, John.
>>
>>When you call somebody a patriot, you really mean "lying scum."
>
>Ah, those crystal balls again ... and when the Parkland docs said back
>of the head or right rear of the head, they really menat top of the
>head.
>
>We get it.
>
Sashay(tm)!!
When the Dallas doctors give testimony that Gary doesn't like, he
calls them "patriots." By that he means "lying scum."
.John
--
John McAdams
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:21:54 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>McAdams) wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course, for Gary, "patriot" means "lying scum."
>>>>
>>>>We moderators would not have passed it if Gary had actually said that,
>>>>but we all know what he *means.*
>>>
>>>Must have been an interesting discussion between you and Peter. Of
>>>course there would not have been any discussion, and Peter may have
>>>never noticed, when you initiated using patriot as a slur ... against
>>>Gary, of course, back in July.
>>
>>There is a difference between using a term the way Gary does, and
>>using it ironically, as I did.
>
>ROTFL!
>>
Don't get carpet dust in your throat, Barb.
>>Why don't you post the context where I called Gary a "patriot" so that
>>people can see the context?
>
>Feel free.
Sashay(tm)!!
Barb, you brought this up.
It's not my job to explain it.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>For Gary, "patriot" is a slur.
>>>
>>>And what was it when you called Gary a patriot in a post a few months
>>>ago? You titled a thread, "Gary Aguilar, patriot" in July ... and it
>>>was hardly meant to be complimentary to Gary.
>>>
>>
>>Because patriot does not mean the same thing to me that it means to
>>Gary.
>
>Oh I see! YOU know what Gary means by a term .... this must be like
>you deem the terms used by the Parkland doctors, for example, not to
>mean what they clearly mean to anyo other person with a functional
>knowledge of medical terminology and anatomy.
Barb, you had an anatomy course sometime somewhere and you think you
know exactly how to interpret their testimony.
But if you bothered to actually look at the testimony, you would see
that (for example) "occipital area" does not mean literally "in
occipital bone."
>>
>>It's also the case that we moderators have always passed Gary calling
>>people "patriots" because, while we all know that it means "lying
>>scum" to Gary, ON ITS FACE it's not a slur.
>
>Why is it okay for a person to constantly attribute something to
>someone that the person has never said ... ad infinitum?
Of course.
You do it all the time.
>>
>>
>>>You used patriot as a slur against Gary. Now you complain about him.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, I used the term ironically.
>
>Well, perhaps Gary sees his use as irony too.
>
No, it's sarcasm.
>Wouldn't that just be ironic. ;-)
>>
>>But since we moderators always pass Gary saying that so and so is a
>>"patriot," you have no reason to gripe that I used the term to
>>describe him, do you?
>
>Me, gripe? Never. :-)))) But I do notice things. Especially obvious
>things. So so others.
>
Then I hope you notice that we always let Gary use "patriots."
.John
--
Barb Junkkarinen
McAdams) wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:41:35 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:21:54 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>>McAdams) wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course, for Gary, "patriot" means "lying scum."
>>>>>
>>>>>We moderators would not have passed it if Gary had actually said that,
>>>>>but we all know what he *means.*
>>>>
>>>>Must have been an interesting discussion between you and Peter. Of
>>>>course there would not have been any discussion, and Peter may have
>>>>never noticed, when you initiated using patriot as a slur ... against
>>>>Gary, of course, back in July.
>>>
>>>There is a difference between using a term the way Gary does, and
>>>using it ironically, as I did.
>>
>>ROTFL!
>>>
>
>Don't get carpet dust in your throat, Barb.
>
>
>>>Why don't you post the context where I called Gary a "patriot" so that
>>>people can see the context?
>>
>>Feel free.
>
>Sashay(tm)!!
>
>Barb, you brought this up.
>
>It's not my job to explain it.
Oh please.
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>For Gary, "patriot" is a slur.
>>>>
>>>>And what was it when you called Gary a patriot in a post a few months
>>>>ago? You titled a thread, "Gary Aguilar, patriot" in July ... and it
>>>>was hardly meant to be complimentary to Gary.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because patriot does not mean the same thing to me that it means to
>>>Gary.
>>
>>Oh I see! YOU know what Gary means by a term .... this must be like
>>you deem the terms used by the Parkland doctors, for example, not to
>>mean what they clearly mean to anyo other person with a functional
>>knowledge of medical terminology and anatomy.
>
>
>Barb, you had an anatomy course sometime somewhere and you think you
>know exactly how to interpret their testimony.
2 years anatomy and physiology, 9 months medical terminology, 25+
years working in the clinical setting (hospital and clinic), including
with pathologists, as well as other physicians ... and reading lots of
doctors notes on charts and orders as well as reports. I'll take ya on
on interpreting their testimony any day of the week, John.
I fell asleep in poly sci once though, so ya got me there. <g>
>
>But if you bothered to actually look at the testimony, you would see
>that (for example) "occipital area" does not mean literally "in
>occipital bone."
Yeah, we all know, John. You need a new mantra. For one thing, which
you consistently fail to grasp, the doctors that place the wound in
the "back of the head" or the "right rear" weren't specifying
occipital bone. They didn't need to .The back of the head, as you've
been told ad infinitum, and have been shown skull graphics besides, is
comprised of parietal and temporal as well as occipital bone.. They
were locating the area of the head where they saw the wound ... not
doing a forensic exam. :-) And a reading by any medical person
realizes that. You pick up on one word that can be/is sometimes used
in a general sense and think you can dismiss their notes and
testimonies. Even in a general since, occipital refers to the BACK of
the head, the REAR of the head. The BACK, REAR of the head consists of
parietal and temporal bone in addition to occipital bone.
Which , being so conversant in interpreting medical lingo, you
certainly should know. So why do you sputter this silly occipital
thing all the time as if it actually means something relevant!
The ones that specified "occiput" and "right occipito-parietal" were
more specific in their terminology.
Your occipital bone canard is really old and very lame, John.
>
>>>
>>>It's also the case that we moderators have always passed Gary calling
>>>people "patriots" because, while we all know that it means "lying
>>>scum" to Gary, ON ITS FACE it's not a slur.
>>
>>Why is it okay for a person to constantly attribute something to
>>someone that the person has never said ... ad infinitum?
>
>Of course.
I asked "why."
>
>You do it all the time.
Certainly try not to.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You used patriot as a slur against Gary. Now you complain about him.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, I used the term ironically.
>>
>>Well, perhaps Gary sees his use as irony too.
>>
>
>No, it's sarcasm.
Oh that's right ... you discern people's motives and emotions as well
as what physicians mean when they write treatment notes.
>
>
>>Wouldn't that just be ironic. ;-)
>>>
>>>But since we moderators always pass Gary saying that so and so is a
>>>"patriot," you have no reason to gripe that I used the term to
>>>describe him, do you?
>>
>>Me, gripe? Never. :-)))) But I do notice things. Especially obvious
>>things. So so others.
>>
>
>Then I hope you notice that we always let Gary use "patriots."
Of that I have no doubt.
Barb :-)
>
>.John
Barb Junkkarinen
McAdams) wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:42:17 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:27:19 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>>McAdams) wrote:
>>
>>>On 21 Sep 2007 13:14:49 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>>><msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think Gary hates those "patriots" who are referred to in the saying that
>>>>"patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
>>>
>>>It was Dr. Johnson who said that.
>>>
>>>But no, Gary hates those "patriots" who produce testimony that he
>>>finds inconvenient.
>>
>>Ah, so now you know he "hates" too. Crystal balls?
>>
>
>He doesn't bother to conceal it, Barb.
He has told you you are incorrect and that "hate" does not apply to
whatever the hate allegation du jour is.
But you don't listen and go on saying it. Over and over again.
Maybe youshould conceal your feelings about Gary and we should all
stick to the issues ... you know, the assassination.
Barb :-)
>
>.John
John Fiorentino
Well, let's see..........How bout this?
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 by 6 mm. on the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm.
laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital
protuberance--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.
Now, let's see, that would be ABOVE IT. NOT through it, not below it.
I think that puts us just about at the TOP of the head.......no?
Erm......... yep, I think it does.
John F.
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:khs6f3ldkkj85ggkq...@4ax.com...
garag...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:29:26 GMT, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> McAdams) wrote:
> >On 21 Sep 2007 13:13:32 -0400, "garyNOS...@gmail.com"
> ><garagui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Sep 20, 6:36 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >>> On 20 Sep 2007 21:35:01 -0400, "garyNOS...@gmail.com"
>
> >>> >I mean, what's more important, to love truth or love one's country? We
> >>> >know where you stand on that question, my fellow American!
>
> >>> Of course, for Gary, "patriot" means "lying scum."
>
> >>> We moderators would not have passed it if Gary had actually said that,
> >>> but we all know what he *means.*
>
> >>> For Gary, "patriot" is a slur.
>
> >>"Lying scum" is your invention, isn't it?
>
> >It's your concept, Gary.
>
> The phrase is your invention, John.
>
>
>
> >When you call somebody a patriot, you really mean "lying scum."
>
> Ah, those crystal balls again ... and when the Parkland docs said back
> of the head or right rear of the head, they really menat top of the
> head.
>
> We get it.
>
> Barb :-)
Touche, Barb!
But there's more: As you've rightly noted, McA does indeed believe that
when Parkland docs said back of the head they REALLY meant top of the
head. But he's not so narrow minded that he stops there.
He allows for the remote possibility that they MIGHT actually have meant
back of the head when they said back of the head. But in that case, McA
considers them "lying scum," which is almost as bad as "patriots."
You see, it's really rather simple.
Gary
John McAdams
<garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
Gary, "back of the head" really means little except "posterior."
You can huff and puff all you want, but "back of the head" is far from
putting the wound where you want it.
We know because when some of your same "back of the head" doctors were
asked to draw the wound, they put it entirely in parietal bone.
For example, is Carrico a "back of the head witness?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
Actually, he pretty much is. He draws the wound as mostly posterior.
BUT NOT WHERE YO NEED IT!
.John
garag...@gmail.com
wrote:
> I think Gary hates those "patriots" who are referred to in the saying that
> "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
>
> Martin
>
Touche!
As usual, Martin is one of the few that "gets" it.
Jonathan Kwitney has a book out that speaks to the problem; "The Crimes of
Patriots." Hoover was a "patriot," Max Clelland, by contrast is a patriot.
That's why the "patriots" now in power had to crucify him - for his
patriotism. Ron Paul is a patriot, too, and that's why he's destined to
get swift-boated if he ever looms too large, by, who else? - "patriots!"
Thanks for cutting to the chase, but, Martin, for the most part, you're
casting your pearls ... a bit out here. ; ~ >
Gary
> "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:46f320e8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> > On 20 Sep 2007 21:39:10 -0400, "garyNOS...@gmail.com"
garag...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2007 13:15:11 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
> <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >> On 20 Sep 2007 22:15:35 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
Better yet, given 'tis the holy days, get our your yarmulke, slip it on
your head, and then move it around a bit. Notice how easy it is to have a
wound that is top only, side almost only, back almost only and frontal
almost only. Notice too that it's easy to have it top- rearward,
top-rear-side, etc. But it's not too easy to have it be frontal-occipital,
unless you're wearing a very large yarmukle and you're a pin head. Then,
it's fronto-parieto-temporo-occipital, which is what McAdams apparently
thinks it is.
Not Jewish? Well then you'd never understand this, or anything else for
that matter. And this is the explanation for why teachers at Christian
schools don't get it
What?! You want I should not proclaim the truth? ; ~ >
Gary
Anthony Marsh
> On 21 Sep 2007 13:14:49 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> I think Gary hates those "patriots" who are referred to in the saying that
>> "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
>
> It was Dr. Johnson who said that.
>
> But no, Gary hates those "patriots" who produce testimony that he
> finds inconvenient.
>
We tend to dislike people who mold their testimony to support the
government position.
Anthony Marsh
> On 21 Sep 2007 13:15:11 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>>> On 20 Sep 2007 22:15:35 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
>>> <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Barb:
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, a friend of mine told me to be nice to you. So, I will try.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt we'll ever agree on much, but I will do my best to remain a
>>>> gentleman.
>>>>
>>>> It's nice to have friends Barb. ;-)
>>> Yes it is. And, I hope, none of mine, would give me a pass on
>>> condoning anything like the blatant mispresenting of evidence like is
>>> so painfully obvious in Cage's "good post."
>>>
>>> Do YOU think Clark described a wound in the "top" of JFK's head?
>>>
>> Theoretically can something be both top AND back?
>> Especially when it starts on the top and extends to the back.
>> Please get out your skull drawings and draw a line for us which divides
>> top from back.
>
> Of course something can be top and back ... and also front and side as
> well.. Get out your thinking cap and apply it to the issue here ....
> where CLARK described the wound HE SAW. And he described it a s a
> wound in the back of the head. He decribed no wound in the top of the
> head ... massive or otherwise.
>
You claim that Clark did not see a wound in the top of the head or
describe it as such. Then how good a witness can he be when you admit that
there was a wound on the top of the head? So why are you citing such a bad
witness?
Barb Junkkarinen
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Barb:
>
>Well, let's see..........How bout this?
>
>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 by 6 mm. on the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm.
>laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital
>protuberance--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.
>
>Now, let's see, that would be ABOVE IT. NOT through it, not below it.
>
>I think that puts us just about at the TOP of the head.......no?
No. And he didn't say anything about the TOP of the head, He's
talking, as Spector is, about the BACK of the head .... right of and
above the eop .... but consistent with what Clark had reported which
was solely back of head, not up around the corner from back of head to
top of head some 4" above the eop.
The question was whether they coiuld have missed seeing the entry hole
at the eop because of all the damage they reported seeing in the back
of the head. Clark says yes, because of the extent of the mess back
there.
*****Would have been pretty silly for Spector to ask Clark if they
could have missed seeing an entry hole at the eop, because it was
obscured by a wound on the TOP of the head, don't ya think?<g>****
Clark reported defect in the right rear quadrant ... and the average
size reported by Parkland was 7cm. 7cm rough diameter placed 1 " right
of and slightly above the eop puts it squarely iin the right rear
quadrant. And that, necessarily includes territory to the right of and
above the level of the eop.
He was asked about it being consistent with an eop entry having been
there that they didn't see ... and he says yes because of the
destruction in that area ... this actually rather confirms Clark
noting the defect he saw was in the rear of the head.<g>
As we know all too well, there's a good 4" of back of the head between
the eop and the cowlick.
>
>Erm......... yep, I think it does.
Think again.
Nice try though, desperate, but nonetheless a nice try. Honest
question - *why* the try-anything attempts to get defect off of the
back of the head?
You, too, know that damage in the rear of the head does not mean a
shot had to have come from the front ... right?
Barb :-)
John McAdams
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:20:55 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>McAdams) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:42:17 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:27:19 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>>>McAdams) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 21 Sep 2007 13:14:49 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>>>><msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I think Gary hates those "patriots" who are referred to in the saying that
>>>>>"patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
>>>>
>>>>It was Dr. Johnson who said that.
>>>>
>>>>But no, Gary hates those "patriots" who produce testimony that he
>>>>finds inconvenient.
>>>
>>>Ah, so now you know he "hates" too. Crystal balls?
>>>
>>
>>He doesn't bother to conceal it, Barb.
>
>He has told you you are incorrect and that "hate" does not apply to
>whatever the hate allegation du jour is.
>
>But you don't listen and go on saying it. Over and over again.
>
>Maybe youshould conceal your feelings about Gary and we should all
>stick to the issues ... you know, the assassination.
>
That's find with me, but you guys have got to play along.
So far, I see no evidence that you are able.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Fiorentino
Well, let's see..........How bout this?
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 by 6 mm. on the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm.
laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital
protuberance--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.
Now, let's see, that would be ABOVE IT. NOT through it, not below it.
I think that puts us just about at the TOP of the head.......no?
Erm......... yep, I think it does.
John F.
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eos6f350bqil6akqk...@4ax.com...
> On 20 Sep 2007 22:15:35 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
> <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>Barb:
>>
>>Anyway, a friend of mine told me to be nice to you. So, I will try.
>>
>>I doubt we'll ever agree on much, but I will do my best to remain a
>>gentleman.
>>
>>It's nice to have friends Barb. ;-)
>
> Yes it is. And, I hope, none of mine, would give me a pass on
> condoning anything like the blatant mispresenting of evidence like is
> so painfully obvious in Cage's "good post."
>
> Do YOU think Clark described a wound in the "top" of JFK's head?
>
> Barb :-)
>>
>>John F.
>>
>>
>>
>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:hm75f35ddap9qttji...@4ax.com...
>>> On 20 Sep 2007 07:46:52 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
>>> <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Barb:
>>>>
>>>>Coming from you this really funny, right Ms. Redlich?
>>>>
>>>>And the wound WAS INDEED WHERE?.......ooops
>>>>
>>>>Why right where the photos show it, and the X-rays, and the examination
>>>>of
>>>>same by Drs. too numerous to mention.
>>>>
>>>>Right?
>>>>
>>>>I'm afraid you'll have to send out the flying monkeys on this one.
>>>
>>> If you can't see what he did ... and you approve of it (you're
>>> certainly making light of it, trying to distract/divert from it) ....
>>> your book should be a real dilly. Pretty sad you can't even
>>> acknowledge what he did here, imo.
>>>
>>> What is it McAdams said?
>>>
>>> QUOTE
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 04:51:26 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>>>>McAdams) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[.....]
>>>>>
>>>>>When ignoring evidence is necessary to make you case, you don't have
>>>>>much of a case.
>>>
>>> END QUOTE
>>>
>>> Ignoring evidence is bad enough, mispresenting evidence should be
>>> intolerable to everyone.
>>>
>>> Barb :-)
>>>>
>>>>John F.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:b4b4f3hugdaogd27r...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On 20 Sep 2007 01:17:54 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
>>>>> <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Good post Ed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John F.
>>>>>
>>>>> You think so, eh, John? Then you must not know Clark's testimony very
>>>>> well. Note two things in what Cage quoted below,
>>>>>
>>>>> First and foremost, he quotes Spector asking Clark about what he saw
>>>>> when he first saw the President; then Cage quotes this ONE line:
>>>>>
>>>>> "CLARK: The President was lying on his back on the emergency cart. (6
>>>>> H 20)"
>>>>>
>>>>> Then he goes on, without ellipses indication chunks of missing
>>>>> testimony. and quotes the Spector question about the top of the head.
>>>>>
>>>>> But WAIT! What was Clark's COMPLETE REPLY to that FIRST question?
>>>>>
>>>>> You should know this, writing a book and all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed left out Clark's description of the head wound. Here is Clark's
>>>>> COMPLETE answer tio that first question from his testimony:
>>>>>
>>>>> QUOTE
>>>>> Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe the President's condition to be on
>>>>> your arrival there?
>>>>>>> Yet here's Clark's testimony under oath which is
>>>>>>> dramatically different:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- ON: -----
>>>>>>> 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. (6 H 20)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mr. SPECTER: 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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dr. CLARK. No, sir; I did not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mr. SPECTER: Did you observe, to make my question
>>>>>>> very specific, a bullet hole or what appeared to
>>>>>>> be a bullet hole in the posterior scalp, approximately
>>>>>>> 2.5 cm. laterally to the right, slightly above the
>>>>>>> external occipital protuberant, measuring 15 by 6 mm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dr. CLARK. No, sir; I did not. This could easily
>>>>>>> have been hidden in the blood and hair.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mr. SPECTER: Did you observe any bullet wounds or any
>>>>>>> other wound on the back side of the President?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dr. CLARK. No, sir; I did not.
>>>>>>> ----- OFF -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for Aguilar's other LBOH wound witnesses the closer
>>>>>>> you look, the more they come unraveled.. Clint Hill's
>>>>>>> account has been widely misused even after he came out
>>>>>>> in National Geographic and clarified his position
>>>>>>> which overly enthusiastic CTers had cranked up several
>>>>>>> notches. Hill explained the gaping wound was indeed
>>>>>>> over the right ear.
>>>>>>> NOW COMETH ONE EACH Saundra K. Spencer. With all due
>>>>>>> respect, she is not taken any more seriously than I
>>>>>>> would be if I said I had pictures of Oswald on the 6F
>>>>>>> doing the actual shooting but they.. ( gULp ) are now
>>>>>>> "missing."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Shades of Travis Linn, Roger Craig, Ron Jenkins.)
>>>>>>> Yeah, right. Oh yeah and Gordon Arnold's wants equal
>>>>>>> time.. It seems his camera footage is also "missing."
>>>>>>> Stolen by a guy with "a gun that looked this big."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HOWEVER my guess is just about all of the Parkland
>>>>>>> Hospital (PH) witnesses meant well.. But virtually all
>>>>>>> of there recollections have been used to deceive naive
>>>>>>> newcomers and even pretty sharp new researchers.. The
>>>>>>> later of these two minuscule factions catch on in
>>>>>>> short order but those with their handy predetermined
>>>>>>> "Oswald was innocent" agenda seldom get it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was no LBOH wound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's what the PH people saw and why they were
>>>>>>> mistaken for many years.. (Most have recanted after
>>>>>>> seeing all the photographic proof btw):
>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/480a57a2052cdd7a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ed Cage
>>>>>>> 1148Sep1907
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Gary A
from Kemp Clark, MD in this quote. Perhaps you just "forgot."
Well, since Kemp Clark, according to you but no one else in the world,
refutes the notion there was a wound in the back of JFK's head, why don't
we look at his evidence, and not Arlen Specter's bowdlerization of it.
O.K. with you?
KEMP CLARK, MD, Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at
Parkland, in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at
Parkland, he described the President's skull wound as, "...in the
occipital region of the skull...Through the head wound, blood and brain
were extruding...There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal
region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring...There was considerable
loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were
extruding from the wound." (Emphasis added-throughout) (WC--CE#392)
In a hand-written hospital note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large
3 x3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount
of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in
the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull
appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Emphasis added) (Exhibit
#392: WC V17:9-10)
Kemp Clark, MD and Malcolm Perry, MD spoke at a press conference 2&1/2
hours after the shooting. Clark said, "The head wound could have been
either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential
wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." ("At the White
House with Wayne Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas,
Texas. Copy from LBJ library. Note: the time specified, 3:16 PM, may be
inaccurate - see chapter by K. Cunningham. The interview, however, did
occur within 2 or 3 hours of JFK's death.) While Clark's description is
not entirely unequivocal, if JFK's skull defect were not rearward, it is
impossible to imagine Clark would have conjectured that the skull defect
was the possible exit site of the "neck" wound. Malcolm Perry, MD, who was
with Clark at the news conference and who performed the tracheostomy by
extending the neck wound Clark just referred to, had just claimed three
times to the press the neck wound was a wound of entrance. (See below.)
Both were unaware of a wound on JFK's back or the back of the neck.
In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark
described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal
region...Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the
wound. (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton D.
Best Evidence, 322)
While under oath before the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark
described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "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." (WC--V6:20) (emphasis added) Specter,
either inattentive to Dr Clark's skull wound description, or wishing to
move the wound more anterior than the eyewitness, neurosurgery professor
placed it, later asked Clark, "Now, you described the massive wound at the
top of the of the President's head, with brain protruding...: (WC:6:25)
(emphasis added) Clark did not interrupt and correct Specter at that
point, but he later again located the skull wound for Specter, "...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." (Emphasis added) (WC--V6:29) The Warren Report stated, "Dr.
Clark, who most closely observed the head wound, described a large, gaping
wound in the right rear part of the head...." (WR, p. 54)
In answer to a question from Specter about the survivability of Kennedy's
wounding, Clark said: "...the loss of cerebellar (sic) tissue wound
probably have been of minmal consequence in the performance of his duties.
The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal
lobes wound have been of specific importance..." (WC6:26) That Clark, a
neurosurgeon, specified that the occipital lobe of the brain was missing
cannot suggest anything but a very posterior defect.
On 1/20/94 a steel salesman from Tennessee, David Naro, interviewed Clark,
MD. Naro reported Clark said, "The lower right occipital region of the
head was blown out and I saw cerebellum." This conveys the same message as
the document he prepared on 11/22/63 and the testimony he gave the Warren
Commission. Controversial author Gerald Posner, who admitted in his book
Case Closed that Clark examined JFK's skull [Posner, G, Case Closed. 1993,
Random House, p.291, 293.], omitted any mention of Clark's early, and
repeated, assertions regarding JFK's skull wound, despite the fact Clark
was not only the most senior physician-witness, his background as a
neurosurgery professor uniquely prepared him to competently intrepret
JFK's skull wounds. Moreover, it was Clark who pronounced JFK dead and who
signed the Parkland death certificate. As we will see, however, Posner
repeatedly ignored the earliest statements of Parkland witnesses in favor
of their thirty year later, contradictory, statements to him. Posner's
ignoring of the earliest recollections of Parkland witnesses is ironic,
for he himself advised, "Testimony closer to the event must be given
greater weight than changes or additions made years later, when the
witness's own memory is often muddied or influenced by television
programs, films, books and discussion with others." [Case Closed. New
York, Random House, 1993, p. 235])
So, dear astute one, where, precisely, did Kemp Clark refute the notion
there was a wound in the back of JFK's head?
I know! In your dreams.
Gary
PS Barb trounced you more succinctly than I did. But I thought that
there'd be some value in citing Clark's actual words, from the record,
even if concision had to be sacrificed to do so. Please excuse me.
Barb Junkkarinen
And that would be the back of the head, John..... not the top of the
head. <g>
We've done this drill before too .... even the topmost part of the
back of the head is not the top of the head.
>
>You can huff and puff all you want, but "back of the head" is far from
>putting the wound where you want it.
I know Gary pretty well, I don't think he wants it any place other
than where the Parkland docs placed it ... and that is on the
posterior of the head ... right rear quadrant.
>
>We know because when some of your same "back of the head" doctors were
>asked to draw the wound, they put it entirely in parietal bone.
Earth to John ... why can't you get this straight? There is pareital
bone on the back of the head. There is also occipital bone and
temporal bone. The area where Parkland located the wound could include
a mix of all three, two of the three, or have been just parietal bone.
The autopsists reported that the defect included all 3.
>
>For example, is Carrico a "back of the head witness?
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
>
>Actually, he pretty much is. He draws the wound as mostly posterior.
>
>BUT NOT WHERE YO NEED IT!
Ah, crystal balls working over time, I see.
Given that skull diagrams have been posted for you, given that it's
been explained more times than I can count that the right rear
quadrant of the head, where Parkland located the wound, is comprised
of parietal, occipital and temporal bone, given that the autopsy
report states defect included defect in all 3 of those bones .... why
in holy heck do you persist with this "need" nonsense?
It's really weird, John. Appears more than a little desperate ... ala,
I don't think the problem is where everyone else "needs" anything to
be, the problem is your desperation NOT to have it where you think (go
figure why) it couldn't have been unless a shot came from the front.
There is no other reason to be back-of-the-head-a-phobic.
Admit it John ... you desperately need for there to have been no
defect on the back of the head because to you that means .... gulp ...
a shot from the front.
You say you know better, but like they say, actions speak louder than
words ... and your actions in fighting so vehemently against defect
being where Clint Hill in DP, the Parkland personnel, and the autopsy
docs put it, sure make it look like you think rear defect equals
frontal shot.
Nonsense, time to put this one behind you .... posterior to you, so to
speak. <g>
Barb :-)
garag...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:20:55 GMT, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John
>
>
>
> McAdams) wrote:
> >On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:42:17 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>
> >>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:27:19 GMT, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John
> >>McAdams) wrote:
>
> >>>On 21 Sep 2007 13:14:49 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >>>>I think Gary hates those "patriots" who are referred to in the saying that
> >>>>"patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
>
> >>>It was Dr. Johnson who said that.
>
> >>>But no, Gary hates those "patriots" who produce testimony that he
> >>>finds inconvenient.
>
> >>Ah, so now you know he "hates" too. Crystal balls?
>
> >He doesn't bother to conceal it, Barb.
>
> He has told you you are incorrect and that "hate" does not apply to
> whatever the hate allegation du jour is.
>
> But you don't listen and go on saying it. Over and over again.
>
> Maybe youshould conceal your feelings about Gary and we should all
> stick to the issues ... you know, the assassination.
>
> Barb :-)
>
>
>
> >.John
You don't expect that old dogs can really unlearn an old tricks, do you? ;
~ >
Oops! I didn't mean to say "trick," because that implies something was
done on purpose - a 'trick,' and that's not allowed by the rules governing
this respectful newsgroup.
No, when McAdams says all us skeptics HATE this person or that person,
he's not doing it on purpose. It's an accident. So McAdams, to give up
this particular slur doesn't need to unlearn an old trick, because it
isn't a trick in the first place. Get it? ? ? ?
It's simple.
Gary
Barb Junkkarinen
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
I think you must have the hiccups ... I alkready replied to this post
and just saw my reply ... now here's your post again. <g> My reply is
already posted to the first one of these that appeared. I'm sure
you'll see it.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
McAdams) wrote:
Ditto. I've at least been asking, suggesting ... trying. But you just
keep it all coming.
What's the point, John?
Among all the things you keep saying people duly note is this kind of
crap.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
ROTFL! We need a new diagram with a yarmulke. Love it.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Oh for Pete's sake, Anthony, you're not some newbie. Or maybe you are
on the medical evidence .. I'm not sure anymore.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:46f41af1....@news.alt.net...
> On 21 Sep 2007 13:14:49 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>I think Gary hates those "patriots" who are referred to in the saying that
>>"patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
>
> It was Dr. Johnson who said that.
>
> But no, Gary hates those "patriots" who produce testimony that he
> finds inconvenient.
>
>
>>
>>Martin
>>
>>"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>>news:46f320e8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>> On 20 Sep 2007 21:39:10 -0400, "garyN...@gmail.com"
>>> <garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sep 20, 9:28 am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> On 20 Sep 2007 07:46:52 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
>>>>>
>>>>> <johnfiorent...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>> >Barb:
>>>>>
>>>>> >Coming from you this really funny, right Ms. Redlich?
>>>>>
>>>>> >And the wound WAS INDEED WHERE?.......ooops
>>>>>
>>>>> >Why right where the photos show it, and the X-rays, and the
>>>>> >examination
>>>>> >of
>>>>> >same by Drs. too numerous to mention.
>>>>>
>>>>> >Right?
>>>>>
>>>>> >I'm afraid you'll have to send out the flying monkeys on this one.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't see what he did ... and you approve of it (you're
>>>>> certainly making light of it, trying to distract/divert from it) ....
>>>>> your book should be a real dilly. Pretty sad you can't even
>>>>> acknowledge what he did here, imo.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it McAdams said?
>>>>>
>>>>> QUOTE
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 04:51:26 GMT, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John
>>>>> >McAdams) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >[.....]
>>>>>
>>>>> >>When ignoring evidence is necessary to make you case, you don't have
>>>>> >>much of a case.
>>>>>
>>>>> END QUOTE
>>>>>
>>>>> Ignoring evidence is bad enough, mispresenting evidence should be
>>>>> intolerable to everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Barb :-)
>>>>>
>>>>You only say that, Barb, because you don't love America. These
>>>>Warrenista chaps and chapettes do, and so when they render testimony
>>>>in an especially patriotic manner, who are you, of all people, to
>>>>judge them wanting?
>>>>
>>>>And how better can one prove his patriotism than to have Kemp Clark
>>>>saying the wound was not in the back of the head, but the top?
>>>>
>>>>If only you were a patriot; then you, too, would know that love of
>>>>country trumps love of truth, and it always will.
>>>>: ~ ?
>>>>Gary
>>>
>>> Yep, that's Gary.
>>>
>>> .John
>>>
>>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>>
>
> --
garag...@gmail.com
> On 22 Sep 2007 00:12:29 -0400, "garyNOS...@gmail.com"
The most authoritative witness on hand puts it where he put it, and
that's what I hew to. Let's recap, shall we?
described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "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." (WC--V6:20) (emphasis
added) Specter, either inattentive to Dr Clark's skull wound
description, or wishing to move the wound more anterior than the
eyewitness, neurosurgery professor placed it, later asked Clark, "Now,
you described the massive wound at the top of the of the President's
head, with brain protruding...: (WC:6:25) (emphasis added) Clark did
not interrupt and correct Specter at that point, but he later again
located the skull wound for Specter, "...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." (Emphasis added) (WC--V6:29) The Warren Report stated,
"Dr. Clark, who most closely observed the head wound, described a
Well, there it is.
I can't really help it if the neurosurgery professor's localization
just happens to coincide so closely with the independent descriptions
other Parkland doctors gave, as reported in the Warren Commission.
Let's recap a few of those, too, shall we?
ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD, resident in surgery, Parkland Hospital:
"...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the
right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It
had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up
through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right
posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured
in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned
in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity
itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain
tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue
had been blasted out...." (WC testimony, 3/21/64. In: 6:33-34.)
MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD, professor of anesthesia, Parkland Hospital:
"a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and
occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that
there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even
to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the
wound." (Clinical notes from 11/22/63. In: WC--Exhibit #392)
CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD, surgery resident, Parkland Hospital:
"(The skull) wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue
present with profuse oozing.....attempts to control slow oozing from
cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted...." (Hand-written
clinical notes dated 11/22/63. In: CE 392--WC V17:4-5)
MALCOLM PERRY, MD, surgery resident, Parkland Hospital:
"There was a neck wound anteriorly and a large wound in his head in
the right rear area." (11/22/63 television interview.)
In a note dated 11-22-63, Perry described the head wound as, "A large
wound of the right posterior cranium..." (In: WC--V17:6--CE#392)
RONALD COY JONES, MD, surgery resident, Parkland Hospital:
"(JFK) had a large wound in the right posterior side of the
head...There was large defect in the back side of the head ... (there)
appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull
(Yikes!)". (WC testimony-V6:53 - 56)
GENE AIKIN, MD, anesthesiologist, Parkland Hospital:
"The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was
shattered with brain substance extruding ... I assume the right
occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had
probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least
tangentially in the back of the head...." (Yikes, again. Not only was
the exit wound in the"back of the head" it was "occipitalparietal,"
too! ) (WC testimony-V6:65 - 67)
PAUL PETERS, MD, surgery resident, Parkland Hospital:
"I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to
me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large
defect." (WC testimony-V6:71)
CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD, surgery resident, Parkland Hospital:
"(T)he right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis
added) and the brain was lying on the table..." (Hand-written notes
dated 11/22/63. In: WR:523).
Amazin' coincidence, ain't it, John - all these guys getting it
"wrong" and all agreeing with the "wrong" location?
Hell, if only these guys had had a little more education in political
science and a little less in anatomy and physiology, then perhaps
they'd have known what the politically correct anatomic location was -
you know, the location you know that somehow escaped the notice of the
neurosurgery professors and trauma surgeons who actually examined
JFK's skull.
Next time a Prez. gets whacked, we need to convene not doctors, but
conservative poly sci teachers to examine the wounds. Only then can we
be sure to get the truth. Right? ; ~ >>
In the meantime, to join the Warrenistas, I have to regard these dudes
as "lying scum," don't I? ; ~ >}
Gary
Crossposted already to alt.conspiracy.jfk, for the obvious reasons.
Peter Fokes
<garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
Very obvious.
You don't like to play by the same rules everyone else does on the
moderated newsgroup.
Best thing you could do for yourself -- if you want your posts to
appear in a timely manner -- is avoid personal attacks. And yes,
determining whether your rhetoric contains a personal attack is a
matter of judgement ... sometimes. Most times, however, it's fairly
obvious.
PF
John Fiorentino
Barb:
First, there are NO "try anything attempts" on my part at least re: this
back of the head nonsense. And I am sorry you have difficulty interpreting
investigative questioning. I do it every day, so perhaps I should cut you
some slack.
What Clark is indicating in response to Specter's questioning IS a wound at
the top of the head. You will note also that Specter refers to "other
ALLEGED facts in this matter" referring of course to the placement of the
inshoot by the autopsists.
Unfortunately, as we now know, they were wrong. The entry was indeed approx
9-10cms higher. The reference to ABOVE being the main point. A large defect
above the entry would place it most certainly at the top of the head. Which
is where of course the photos and X-rays indicate it is.
There is no evidence in the photos or X-rays of any large defect in the area
you people seem to be indicating. That is the point for me.
Canal's theories aside, there is just no evidence to support these notions.
A shot from the front I would certainly agree would not be necessary to
produce damage "in the rear of the head." But, again, there is no damage of
the type you people indicate in that area.
Your statement here: "As we know all too well, there's a good 4" of back
of the head between the eop and the cowlick." Along with being self-serving
is also meaningless as the reference is to a wound ABOVE the purported
entry, which was ABOVE the EOP.
Frankly, this whole exercise is simply a waste of time. It serves no useful
purpose other than a semantics debate.
John F.
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9s59f3l3itmsjstu1...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>Barb:
>
There is nothing merely "semantic" about this. Kemp Clark, the
neurosurgeon, flat out stated the wound he saw was in the back of the
head, rear posterior.
And there really isn't much more than can be said about it.
Barb :-)
John McAdams
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:24:33 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>McAdams) wrote:
>
>>
>>Barb, you had an anatomy course sometime somewhere and you think you
>>know exactly how to interpret their testimony.
>
>2 years anatomy and physiology, 9 months medical terminology, 25+
>years working in the clinical setting (hospital and clinic), including
>with pathologists, as well as other physicians ... and reading lots of
>doctors notes on charts and orders as well as reports. I'll take ya on
>on interpreting their testimony any day of the week, John.
>
>I fell asleep in poly sci once though, so ya got me there. <g>
Did you fall asleep in history too?
During the part where they warn people about the unreliability of
witness testimony?
>>
>>But if you bothered to actually look at the testimony, you would see
>>that (for example) "occipital area" does not mean literally "in
>>occipital bone."
>
>Yeah, we all know, John. You need a new mantra. For one thing, which
>you consistently fail to grasp, the doctors that place the wound in
>the "back of the head" or the "right rear" weren't specifying
>occipital bone. They didn't need to .The back of the head, as you've
>been told ad infinitum, and have been shown skull graphics besides, is
>comprised of parietal and temporal as well as occipital bone.. They
>were locating the area of the head where they saw the wound ... not
>doing a forensic exam. :-)
Oh, my!!!
You are admitting that what they said does *not* necessarily put the
great defect into occipital bone!
>And a reading by any medical person
>realizes that. You pick up on one word that can be/is sometimes used
>in a general sense and think you can dismiss their notes and
>testimonies. Even in a general since, occipital refers to the BACK of
>the head, the REAR of the head. The BACK, REAR of the head consists of
>parietal and temporal bone in addition to occipital bone.
>
Yep, and the "great defect" was in parietal bone.
Which you *admit* is consistent with "back of the head" testimony!
And also consistent with the autopsy photos and x-rays.
>Which , being so conversant in interpreting medical lingo, you
>certainly should know. So why do you sputter this silly occipital
>thing all the time as if it actually means something relevant!
>
Because the wound really *did* extend into the "occipital area" --
meaning the posterior part of parietal bone.
It extended back to the cowlick area.
>The ones that specified "occiput" and "right occipito-parietal" were
>more specific in their terminology.
>
Now you are claiming that the "great defect" really *did* extend into
occipital bone?
>Your occipital bone canard is really old and very lame, John.
>>
So do you or don't you believe the "great defect" extended into
occipital bone?
And you have already *admitted* that saying "occipital" doesn't
necessarily mean "into occipital bone."
>>>>
>>>>It's also the case that we moderators have always passed Gary calling
>>>>people "patriots" because, while we all know that it means "lying
>>>>scum" to Gary, ON ITS FACE it's not a slur.
>>>
>>>Why is it okay for a person to constantly attribute something to
>>>someone that the person has never said ... ad infinitum?
>>
>>Of course.
>
>I asked "why."
Because posters have a right to point out what other posters are
saying.
You know perfectly well that Gary thinks that several Dallas doctors
were lying when they gave testimony that he finds inconvenient.
>>
>>You do it all the time.
>
>Certainly try not to.
No you don't.
How many times have you claimed that I don't accept your version of
the entry defect near the EOP because I think it implies a shot from
the front?
And I've *told* you I don't believe that.
Gary has never *told* anybody that he thinks (say) Jenkins told the
truth. He, in fact, insists that Jenkins was lying scum.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You used patriot as a slur against Gary. Now you complain about him.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually, I used the term ironically.
>>>
>>>Well, perhaps Gary sees his use as irony too.
>>>
>>
>>No, it's sarcasm.
>
>Oh that's right ... you discern people's motives and emotions as well
>as what physicians mean when they write treatment notes.
Do you actually believe that you aren't *interpreting* the testimony,
Barb?
If so, please take a history course.
Barb Junkkarinen
McAdams) wrote:
Gee, John ... where ya been?!
This would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
I wonder how many times myself or others have told you that your "you
need to get it into occipital bone" is FALSE, ANOTHER of your OWN
CREATIONS ... and a misguided one.
The wound was where the wound was. And according to Parkland ... that
was in the BACK of the head, the RIGHT REAR of the head .... that
would be right rear quadrant.
The AUTOPSYS is what told us which bones were involved ... and they
said ALL 3 of the bones that comprise the back of the head: parietal,
temporal AND occipital. No duh there , they said the entry wa in
occipital bone ... and that there was a loss of bone above that and
forward 17cm.
Quit huffing and puffing llong enough to pay attention to what people
actually say to you ... in my case what I have been saying to you for
YEARS, and you can avoid looking so, in my opinion of course, silly.
SOME of the Parkland statements specifically put the wound they saw in
occipital bone ... either solely or along with parietal bone.
Gee, I said that in the very post you replied to here, so what do you
do???
Start a splashy new titled thread that really only shows that you
either can't read what I wrote, didn't bother to read what I wrote ...
or didn't care and just wanted to spam the group with another claim,
another knot for someone to straighten out.
What I said is clear. Well, to all but perhaps the new "dream team"
... you and cage. But then he can't even understand, even when told
and given quotes, that what he is presenting as Clark's take on the
head wound is patently, documentably, demonstrably false.
A match made in heaven!
Peddle your nonsense somewhere else. Most people can read.
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
Did Clark also say that he saw a massive wound on the TOP of the head?
You've already admitted that's where the wound was.
Anthony Marsh
The key word here is BEGINNING. He is describing one wound which
extended from the top into the back. John Canal's BOH wound is a second
and separate wound. Do you disagree with Canal and believe it was only
one large wound extending into the back? If not, then why cite Clark?
Anthony Marsh
My point remains that you are misrepresenting the evidence to promote a
theory about a back of the head wound. You falsely claimed that Clark
"decribed no wound in the top of the head." You know that is false as you
have been following this thread and others have quoted Clark.
In a hand-written hospital note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large
3 x3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount
of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in
the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull
appeared gone at the brief examination .... ." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)
Get out your reference books. The parietal is not in the back of the head.
Mr. SPECTER - 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? Dr. CLARK - No, sir; I did not.
There it is in black and white for all to see.
"you described the massive wound at the top of the President's head. . ."
And yet you deny it because it does not seem to fit in with someone's
theory about a back of the head wound. I gave you a chance to dig yourself
out of this mess, but you failed. So I have to quote the actual testimony
and your statements which show that you are misrepresenting the evidence
in this case to push a particular theory. Stop misrepresenting the
evidence.
Anthony Marsh
The parietal bone is not the back of the head. It is the top of the head.
garag...@gmail.com
> On 22 Sep 2007 12:33:44 -0400, "garyNOS...@gmail.com"
Does that mean that the best course of action it to follow the example
of the chief moderator, John McAdams? ' ~ }
GA
Anthony Marsh
> On 22 Sep 2007 00:06:16 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
> <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Barb:
>>
>> Well, let's see..........How bout this?
>>
>> 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 by 6 mm. on the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm.
>> laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital
>> protuberance--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.
>>
>> Now, let's see, that would be ABOVE IT. NOT through it, not below it.
>>
>> I think that puts us just about at the TOP of the head.......no?
>
> No. And he didn't say anything about the TOP of the head, He's
> talking, as Spector is, about the BACK of the head .... right of and
> above the eop .... but consistent with what Clark had reported which
> was solely back of head, not up around the corner from back of head to
> top of head some 4" above the eop.
>
Yet another misrepresentation. Specter specifically talked about Clark
describing the wound on the TOP of the head.
> Mr. SPECTER: 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?
Specter said TOP.
> The question was whether they coiuld have missed seeing the entry hole
> at the eop because of all the damage they reported seeing in the back
> of the head. Clark says yes, because of the extent of the mess back
> there.
>
Yes, and the wounds were not above the hair as your silly experiment shows.
garag...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Barb:
>
> First, there are NO "try anything attempts" on my part at least re: this
> back of the head nonsense. And I am sorry you have difficulty interpreting
> investigative questioning. I do it every day, so perhaps I should cut you
> some slack.
>
> What Clark is indicating in response to Specter's questioning IS a wound at
> the top of the head. You will note also that Specter refers to "other
> ALLEGED facts in this matter" referring of course to the placement of the
> inshoot by the autopsists.
>
John,
Your attempt to interpret Clark's description of JFK's head wound as
anything but what Clark repeatedly and plainly has said it was himself is
beyond ludicrous.
I mean, it's silly for someone with no degree to explain what a
neurosurgeon meant when he was describing and redescribing and
redescribing a neurosurgical wound.
Gary
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/Module/skull.html
Pink is parietal bone.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
You are incorrect.
>You falsely claimed that Clark
>"decribed no wound in the top of the head." You know that is false as you
>have been following this thread and others have quoted Clark.
Please quote Clark describing a wund in the top of the head. He never
described a wound in the top of the head.
>
>In a hand-written hospital note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large
>3 x3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount
>of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in
>the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull
>appeared gone at the brief examination .... ." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)
Yes ... so????
>
>Get out your reference books. The parietal is not in the back of the head.
Get out your own reference books, Anthoony ... there is quite a bit of
parietal bone on the back of the head.
Here's a skull. Pink is parietal:
http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/Module/skull.html
>
>Mr. SPECTER - 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? Dr. CLARK - No, sir; I did not.
>
>
>There it is in black and white for all to see.
ROTFL!!! That is SPECTER mangling a question! But since Specter refers
to Clark having described a massive wound in the top of the head ...
quote Clark having testified to a wound in the top of the head!
He didn't.
In hsi testimony, which matches his early treatment notes, he
described the wound he saw thusly:
QUOTE FROM WV TESTIMONY
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.
END QUOTE
>
>"you described the massive wound at the top of the President's head. . ."
SPECTER said that ... and he was wrong ... check Clark's testimony. I
quoted his description of the wound from his testimony above. And that
matches everything Clark has ever said about the wound he saw.
Geesh, Tony, if I ask you: So, Tony, when you said you ran over that
dog on purpose, didn't you know it could get you into big trouble."
... that bevomes proof that you admitted running over a dog in your
world, eh?
In your dreams.
>
>And yet you deny it because it does not seem to fit in with someone's
>theory about a back of the head wound. I gave you a chance to dig yourself
>out of this mess, but you failed. So I have to quote the actual testimony
>and your statements which show that you are misrepresenting the evidence
>in this case to push a particular theory. Stop misrepresenting the
>evidence.
I've been quoting the actual testimony 6 times a day it sems ... the
real ACTUAL testimony ... CLARK'S WORDS as he described the wound.
Do I dent Clark described a massive top of the head wound in his AC
testimony?
You bet I deny it ... because he never described any such thing ...
naever. And if you think he did, then quote CLARK describing such a
wound in his testimony.
It's not there because he never did. He did refer to the wound in the
right rear of the skull in other places though/
Looks like you're an official member of Cage's dream team. Geesh. A
regular nightmare. READ! This has GOT to be a joke on your part. I
hope.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Bully for Specter. He wasn't testifying. He wasn't a witness. He never
saw the wound. Clark saw the wound. Clark was testifying. Clark never
described any wound on the top of the head ... he explicityly
described the wound he saw as being in the back of the head, right
rear.
But, hey, I guess maybe since you are on the dream team now, if
Spector said it, it must mean it's true even though there's not one
word anywhere in Clark's testimony where he describes a wound on the
top of the head. There is plenty in his testimony where he
describes/talks about the wound in the back, right rear of the head he
saw though.
Specter mangled the question, Clark did not bother to correct him.
That's not the only stupid thing Specter did during questioning people
in their testimony either.
I'm done doing this one with you, Anthony. This is ludicrous.
eca...@tx.rr.com
Thanks John Fiorentino! For another clear example
of your ability to cut thru the insider jargon
and make a solid point.. And as I've said before
thanks to Dr McAdams and DVP for helping on this
subject we should never even be discussing in the
first place in light of the fact that the three
sets of photographic evidence (each a series) are
*proof positive* there never even was a LBOH wound.
Not to mention nobody in the PH ER even saw the
actual back of the head!
I've asked myself why these same 3 people chase
after this hopeless vision that someday someone
will think the Z-film, autopsy photos and x-rays
were all faked.. Not to mention all of the different
doctors who agreed there never was a large back of
the head (LBOH) wound... The mind boggles..
To some extent without naming names I think egos
play a large part in staying with a not just sinking,
but sunken ship. And some enjoy verbal sparring and
wise-cracks.. Hell I can get all the salty dialog I
want at home (if I enjoyed it.)
But on a far more serious note I know I share the
genuine concern many others like you guys have..
And that's the plight of new researchers checking
to see what information AA and AC have to base an
assassination conclusion on.. I say we have a
responsibility to correct these nutty ideas like
a "LBOH wound" in spite of overwhelming photographic
*proof* to the contrary. There will always be these
conspiracy theorists without a conspiracy theory
lurking around in the shadows saying, "There's
Something Fishy Here" in lieu of the evidence they
don't have.
Folks, the LBOH wound is dead horse if you will..
__ __
| | | |
| | | |
__ | |________| |
| \\ | | / |
| \__/ / |
| x /
\___________________=====----
V
` MR ;^D
` Ed Cage
` 2327Sep2207
On Sep 21, 11:06 pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> Barb:
>
> Well, let's see..........How bout this?
>
> 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 by 6 mm. on the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm.
> laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital
> protuberance--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.
>
> Now, let's see, that would be ABOVE IT. NOT through it, not below it.
>
> I think that puts us just about at the TOP of the head.......no?
>
> Erm......... yep, I think it does.
>
> John F.
>
> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:khs6f3ldkkj85ggkq...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On 20 Sep 2007 22:03:08 -0400, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
>
> >>The answer is "yes" Mr Canal. I already posted
> >>Clark's sworn WC testimony which you appear to
> >>have not even opened:
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a6d742931fd2491...
>
> >>Here's most of what it said if you missed it and
> >>please note Clark's testimony under oath which is
> >>dramatically different:
>
> > You actually have the gall to repost your mispresented, mangled ...
> > downright misrepresented version of Clark's testimony **again**!!
>
> > OY!
>
> > Perhaps, since you note Spector asking about the massive wound Clark
> > had already described in the "top" of the head ... you could find the
> > passage in Clark's testimony where he describes a wound in the "top"
> > of the head and please quote it here.
>
> > I'm not familiar with Clark ever saying any such thing.
>
> > Here's your chance, Ed. :-)
>
> >> ----- ON: -----
> >>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. (6 H 20)
>
> >>Mr. SPECTER: 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?
>
> >>Dr. CLARK. No, sir; I did not.
>
> >>Mr. SPECTER: Did you observe, to make my question
> >>very specific, a bullet hole or what appeared to
> >>be a bullet hole in the posterior scalp, approximately
> >>2.5 cm. laterally to the right, slightly above the
> >>external occipital protuberant, measuring 15 by 6 mm.
>
> >>Dr. CLARK. No, sir; I did not. This could easily
> >>have been hidden in the blood and hair.
>
> >>Mr. SPECTER: Did you observe any bullet wounds or any
> >>other wound on the back side of the President?
>
> >>Dr. CLARK. No, sir; I did not.
> >>` ----- OFF -----
>
> >>` >>> EARTH TO CANAL: There was no LBOH wound <<<
> >>` Just like you said:
> >>` "Once again, it wasn't really a "LBOH" wound."
> >>` - John Canal, April 14, 2007, 10:21pm
>
> >> Here's what the PH people saw and why they were
> >>mistaken for many years.. (Most have recanted after
> >>seeing all the photographic proof btw):
> >>> >Barb:
>
> >>> >Coming from you this really funny, right Ms. Redlich?
>
> >>> >And the wound WAS INDEED WHERE?.......ooops
>
> >>> >Why right where the photos show it,
>
> >>> and the X-rays, and the examination of
>
> >>> >same by Drs. too numerous to mention.
>
> >>> >Right?
>
> >>> >I'm afraid you'll have to send out the flying monkeys on this one.
>
> >>> >John F.
>
> >>> [....]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Fiorentino
Ah, the "credential" issue again. My "no degree" status has once again
reared it's ugly head and shown that I am indeed the village idiot.
Even though, as Gary knows quite well this type of deduction is performed
daily in pre-trial discoveries and in court-rooms everywhere.
Yes, even in questioning before investigative commissions, as we see with
the WC.
Gary, I do wish you would quit changing your mind. I mean one day, I'm
competent, the next day, I'm an idiot.......very confusing.
BTW, are YOU a neurosurgeon?
John F.
"garyN...@gmail.com" <garag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190496400.6...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
John Canal
eca...@tx.rr.com says...
>
>Thanks John Fiorentino! For another clear example
>of your ability to cut thru the insider jargon
>and make a solid point.. And as I've said before
>thanks to Dr McAdams and DVP for helping on this
>subject we should never even be discussing in the
>first place in light of the fact that the three
>sets of photographic evidence (each a series) are
>*proof positive* there never even was a LBOH wound.
Well, well, well, "the three sets of photographic evidence (each a series) are
proof positive there never even was a LBOH wound", eh???????
Ok, I think buried somewhere in one of your seemingly kajillion posts about me
opining on the 6.5 mm opacity and my using LBOH wound vs. BOH wound (maybe I
should've said MBOH wound, as medium?).....that have contributed so much to the
debate on this case, you claimed you could explain why:
.....the area of the 13 cm x 17 cm, blow-out, exit defect that is illustrated
in McA's favorite Dox dwg as being a cm or two anterior to "their" entry....is
seen in the BOH photo having untorn, udamaged, and intact scalp/hair.....WHEN
THE AUTOPSISTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS "ABSENCE" OF SCALP IN THAT SAME
AREA...AND TESTIFIED (WC) THAT "...THIS AREA WAS DEVOID OF ANY SCALP OR SKULL AT
THIS PRESENT TIME."
If you did say you could explain that conflict, then please put your explanation
here________________________________________________________________________.
And the invitation to explain the aforementioned conflict is extended once again
to McAdams, Fiorentino, David VP, cdddraftsman, and Mitch Todd as well.
BTW, if you can't offer other than a laughable explanation for that conflict,
don't you think it'd be reasonable to request that you stop misusing that photo
as some sort of proof there was no MBOH, BOH, or LBOH wound and the entry was in
the cowlick.....considering you people don't really know what's being shown in
that photo?????????????????????
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
That is your spin on it. But if Clark were not describing a wound on the
top of the head, he would have corrected Specter. But he didn't.
How could Specter be wrong? He wasn't there at Parkland.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
More importantly, if Clark had described a massive wound to the top of
the head in his testimony, you should be able to find it and post it
here.
You can't, because such a description from Clark doesn't exist ... not
anywhere, because he never described any such thing. The wound he did
describe early on in his testinoy is, as has been posted a bejillion
times in the last few days:
QUOTE
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.
END QUOTE
Don't bother coming back at me on this unless you have a quote of
Clark ***describing*** a massive wound to the top of the head in his
testimony. I'm not going to waste any more time on this nonsense.
garag...@gmail.com
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> > On 22 Sep 2007 23:26:45 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
> >> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >>> On 22 Sep 2007 00:43:54 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
> >>>> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >>>>> On 21 Sep 2007 13:15:11 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
> >>>>>> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 20 Sep 2007 22:15:35 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
Tony, you're the last person I would have expected to be this naive.
Clark is facing the majesty of the state, fer chrissakes! He wasn't
going to rebuke one of its courtiers/representatives, was he? Who'd be
foolish enough to do that?
But lets review how Clark, himself, described JFK's skull wound, shall
we - AFTER Specter's off base question:
While under oath before the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark
described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "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
End of Clark
How many times do we have to see Dallas doctors putting their tales
between their legs in the face of the power and majesty of the state
to grasp that they fully understood that they were outmaneuvered, out
gunned and in no position to give so much as a peep?
Here, for example, is what I've written about how Dr. Perry was cowed:
Challenging Press Accounts
Early press reports from the emergency doctors in Dallas said that JFK
had suffered an entrance wound in the throat, and a massive wound in
the head.[63] The Commission of course concluded that JFK's throat
wound was not an entrance wound, but one of exit: it was the site
through which the bullet that had hit JFK in the back exited his body
on its way toward John Connally. What concerns us is not the
interesting question of whether it was in fact an entrance wound, but
how the Commission handled the early reports that said it was an
entrance wound.
The Commission wrote, "Considerable confusion has arisen because of
comments attributed to Dr. Perry concerning the nature of the neck
wound. Immediately after the assassination, many people reached
erroneous conclusions about the source of the shots because of Dr.
Perry's observation to the press ... Commenting on his answers at the
press conference, Dr. Perry testified before the Commission: 'I
expressed it [his answers] as a matter of speculation that this was
conceivable...'. Dr. Perry's recollection of his comments [having been
misrepresented by the press] is corroborated by some of the news
stories after the press conference. The New York Herald Tribune on
November 23, 1963, reported as follows: 'Dr. Malcolm Perry ... said he
saw two wounds - one below the Adam's apple, the other at the back of
the head.' He said he did not know if two bullets were involved. It is
possible, he said, that the neck wound was the entrance and the other
the exit."[64]
In essence, the Commission was saying that the controversy only arose
because the media was sloppy. However, Dr. Perry's verbatim statements
paint a different picture, one of the sloppiness on the parts of the
New York Herald Tribune and the Commission.
Dr. Perry took over the care of JFK's labored breathing from an
associate, Charles Carrico, MD.[65] To help, he surgically enlarged
the throat wound through a tracheotomy incision to insert a breathing
tube. If only out of professional interest, if not in the interest of
accurately assessing the wounded site he intended to further violate
with a potentially dangerous incision on a living President, it makes
sense to suppose that Perry probably took a reasonable peek at the
President's throat wound before plunging his knife. On 11-22-63, at
3:16 PM CST, barely two hours after JFK was pronounced dead, Perry
appeared with Kemp Clark, MD, the professor of neurosurgery who had
pronounced JFK dead.
A newsman asked Perry: "Where was the entrance wound?"
Perry: "There was an entrance wound in the neck..."
Question: Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At
him?"
Perry: "It appeared to be coming at him."...
Question: "Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the
front in the throat?"
Perry: "The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the
throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don't know. It could
have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the
head. There was not time to determine this at the particular
instant."[66] (emphasis added)
Transcript of Nov. 22 afternoon press conference given by Parkland
Hospital physicians Dr. Malcolm Perry and Dr. Kemp Clark. Dr. Perry's
actual statements contradict the Warren Commission's allegations that
he was misreported.
(see ARRB MD #41)
On 11/22/63 UPI reported that Perry had said, "There was an entrance
wound below the Adam's apple."[67] The New York Times reported, "...
Dr. Malcolm Perry ... [said] Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the
throat, just below the Adam's apple ... This wound had the appearance of
a bullet's entry ... ."[68] On 11/23/63, the Dallas Morning News
reported, "The front neck hole was described as an entrance wound,"
and it quoted Perry to say, "It did however appear to be the entrance
wound at the front of the throat." These press accounts, and others
like them, accurately reflect the fact that at no time during the
press conference did Perry allow for any other possibility than that
the throat wound was an entrance wound.
How did the Warren Report describe Perry's press conference
statements? It reported, "Dr. Perry... stated to the press that a
variety of possibilities could account for the President's
wounds."[69] (Emphasis added) Whereas numerous press reports had
accurately described Perry's belief the wound was one of entrance, the
Warren Report cited only the New York Herald Tribune's vague and less
accurate version. Ironically, Perry wasn't easily dislodged from his
original position.
The day after the murder Boston Globe medical reporter, Herbert Black,
asked Perry how the throat wound could have been an entrance wound if
the gunman was behind the President. Perry answered, "It may have been
that the President was looking sideways with his head thrown back when
the bullet or bullets struck him."[70] [It is of interest that, after
discussing what was visible in the Zapruder film, Life Magazine
offered this same explanation on December 18th for JFK's throat wound
- that JFK had turned toward the sniper's nest just before being shot.
[71] The Zapruder film, however, discloses no such turn. Neither the
Warren Commission, nor Life Magazine, nor the government, ever
corrected Life's error. This mischaracterization became but one of
many exhibits cited by skeptics in criticizing the media's handling of
JFK murder.[72] [73]]
The Warren Commission's Arlen Specter was concerned about published
reports from Perry's press conference. Presuming Oswald's guilt,
Specter had proposed a theory that would defend that assumption, the
so-called "Single Bullet Theory." This theory explained how it was
that both JFK and Connally could be seen in the Zapruder film to have
been wounded in too short a time for Oswald to have fired twice. The
answer? Lucky Oswald hit both with one shot, the single bullet causing
all seven of the nonfatal wounds sustained by both victims.
In fact, although Specter himself has admitted that his supervisor,
Commission counsel Norman Redlich, had banned pretestimony interviews,
[74] Specter nevertheless interviewed Perry before he testified to the
Warren Commission. He indicated that he would obtain recordings of
Perry's public comments for Perry to review "prior to his appearance,
before deposition or before the Commission," which, Specter
acknowledged, he had been unable to do.[75] Under oath, Perry
repeatedly answered apologetically, and inaccurately, about how the
press had misreported his explanation of JFK's throat wound. After the
Commission suggested Perry be furnished the suspect press reports, so
that Perry could correct the errors,[76] Specter asked Perry for the
second time during his appearance for clarification.
"Was it (the throat wound) ragged or pushed out in any manner?" Perry
astutely replied, "the edges were neither cleancut, that is punched
out, nor were they very ragged ... I did not examine it very
closely." [77] (emphasis added) No Commissioner was impolite enough to
ask Perry why he would have made an incision on a President's bleeding
throat without taking a careful look at it. Nor did they remind the
doctor that only a few minutes earlier, before Specter had made his
preferences so plain, Perry had admitted that the throat wound's
"edges were neither ragged nor were they punched out, but rather
clean."[78] The Commission apparently either never examined the
verbatim transcript of Perry's press conference, or it neglected to
discuss what Perry actually said, in either case settling instead for
Perry's Specter-abetted finger pointing. The libel against the press
thus went unchallenged.
Footnotes, hotlinked to on-line, source documents, are available at:
Garyhttp://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1b.htm
The bottom line is that when the Majesty of the State speaks, people
listen!
Specter misrepresents Clark's clear descriptions of JFK's wounds, and
you're ready to embrace what Specter's misrepresentation and reject
Clark's own descriptions?!
Gary
garag...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Gary:
>
> Ah, the "credential" issue again. My "no degree" status has once again
> reared it's ugly head and shown that I am indeed the village idiot.
>
I never called you the "village idiot," you did. I'll leave your self
description alone.
> Even though, as Gary knows quite well this type of deduction is performed
> daily in pre-trial discoveries and in court-rooms everywhere.
>
What, about "village idiots?"
> Yes, even in questioning before investigative commissions, as we see with
> the WC.
>
> Gary, I do wish you would quit changing your mind. I mean one day, I'm
> competent, the next day, I'm an idiot.......very confusing.
>
> BTW, are YOU a neurosurgeon?
>
> John F.
>
I'm not a neurosurgeon, but I AM a surgeon, and I've been a cosurgeon in
cases involving neurosurgeons.
And guess what? "Credentials" have nothing to do with it. Anyone with a
textbook of anatomy - someone like Barb, say - can easily see what
neurosurgeon Clark meant by what he said. Clark, in other words, doesn't
need a non-credentialed cove like you to explain what terms commonly used
in neurosurgery, and in neuroanatomy, and in general anatomy mean; for
they mean the same thing to everyone, whether Barb, you or the Man in the
Moon.
So, since you apparently don't really understand what they mean, or you
appear not to, let's recap what Clark actually said, shall we?
KEMP CLARK, MD, Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at
Parkland, in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at
Parkland, he described the President's skull wound as, "...in the
occipital region of the skull...Through the head wound, blood and brain
were extruding...There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal
region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring...There was considerable
loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were
extruding from the wound." (Emphasis added-throughout) (WC--CE#392)
In a hand-written hospital note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large
3 x3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount
of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in
the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull
appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Emphasis added) (Exhibit
#392: WC V17:9-10)
Kemp Clark, MD and Malcolm Perry, MD spoke at a press conference 2&1/2
hours after the shooting. Clark said, "The head wound could have been
either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential
wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." ("At the White
House with Wayne Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas,
Texas. Copy from LBJ library. Note: the time specified, 3:16 PM, may be
inaccurate - see chapter by K. Cunningham. The interview, however, did
occur within 2 or 3 hours of JFK's death.) While Clark's description is
not entirely unequivocal, if JFK's skull defect were not rearward, it is
impossible to imagine Clark would have conjectured that the skull defect
was the possible exit site of the "neck" wound. Malcolm Perry, MD, who was
with Clark at the news conference and who performed the tracheostomy by
extending the neck wound Clark just referred to, had just claimed three
times to the press the neck wound was a wound of entrance. (See below.)
Both were unaware of a wound on JFK's back or the back of the neck.
In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark
described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal
region...Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the
wound. (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton D.
Best Evidence, 322)
While under oath before the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark
described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "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." (WC--V6:20) (emphasis added) Specter,
either inattentive to Dr Clark's skull wound description, or wishing to
move the wound more anterior than the eyewitness, neurosurgery professor
placed it, later asked Clark, "Now, you described the massive wound at the
top of the of the President's head, with brain protruding...: (WC:6:25)
(emphasis added) Clark did not interrupt and correct Specter at that
point, but he later again located the skull wound for Specter, "...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." (Emphasis added) (WC--V6:29) The Warren Report stated, "Dr.
Clark, who most closely observed the head wound, described a large, gaping
wound in the right rear part of the head...." (WR, p. 54)
In answer to a question from Specter about the survivability of Kennedy's
wounding, Clark said: "...the loss of cerebellar (sic) tissue wound
probably have been of minmal consequence in the performance of his duties.
The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal
lobes wound have been of specific importance..." (WC6:26) That Clark, a
neurosurgeon, specified that the occipital lobe of the brain was missing
cannot suggest anything but a very posterior defect.
On 1/20/94 a steel salesman from Tennessee, David Naro, interviewed Clark,
MD. Naro reported Clark said, "The lower right occipital region of the
head was blown out and I saw cerebellum." This conveys the same message as
the document he prepared on 11/22/63 and the testimony he gave the Warren
Commission. Controversial author Gerald Posner, who admitted in his book
Case Closed that Clark examined JFK's skull [Posner, G, Case Closed. 1993,
Random House, p.291, 293.], omitted any mention of Clark's early, and
repeated, assertions regarding JFK's skull wound, despite the fact Clark
was not only the most senior physician-witness, his background as a
neurosurgery professor uniquely prepared him to competently intrepret
JFK's skull wounds. Moreover, it was Clark who pronounced JFK dead and who
signed the Parkland death certificate. As we will see, however, Posner
repeatedly ignored the earliest statements of Parkland witnesses in favor
of their thirty year later, contradictory, statements to him. Posner's
ignoring of the earliest recollections of Parkland witnesses is ironic,
for he himself advised, "Testimony closer to the event must be given
greater weight than changes or additions made years later, when the
witness's own memory is often muddied or influenced by television
programs, films, books and discussion with others." [Case Closed. New
York, Random House, 1993, p. 235])
I fully realize that Clark's testimony, his contemporaneous notes, his
accounts to David Naro afterward are all extremely inconvenient.
But you're the one who says Clark meant that the wound he saw was on the
TOP OF JFK'S HEAD.
Soooo, on what basis do you say that, John?
And I'll ask you to stick closely to what Clark has said himself, and not
what you 'BELIEVE" Clark meant to say. He's perfectly capable of
explaining his own meaning with no help for a non-doctor, like you. For as
unlikely (to you) as it may seem, this particular professor of
neurosurgery was actually familiar with neurosurgical and anatomical
terms!
; ~ }
Gary
Anthony Marsh
You are not allowed by the rules of this newsgroup to call another
poster naive.
> Clark is facing the majesty of the state, fer chrissakes! He wasn't
> going to rebuke one of its courtiers/representatives, was he? Who'd be
> foolish enough to do that?
>
He could easily explain that HE didn't mean to leave that impression.
You know well that ALL the Parkland personnel were threatened by Baxter.
Then look in TKOAP and see where virtually every one of them puts a hand
to indicate where the wound was. Somewhere on the back of the head. Not on
the top of the head. That doesn't look to me like everyone caving in to
peer pressure of government pressure.
That's why we need competent autopsies.
> In essence, the Commission was saying that the controversy only arose
> because the media was sloppy. However, Dr. Perry's verbatim statements
No, the press only recorded what almost all the doctors said.
Only because they never looked at the back.
> Transcript of Nov. 22 afternoon press conference given by Parkland
> Hospital physicians Dr. Malcolm Perry and Dr. Kemp Clark. Dr. Perry's
> actual statements contradict the Warren Commission's allegations that
> he was misreported.
> (see ARRB MD #41)
>
> On 11/22/63 UPI reported that Perry had said, "There was an entrance
> wound below the Adam's apple."[67] The New York Times reported, "...
> Dr. Malcolm Perry ... [said] Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the
> throat, just below the Adam's apple ... This wound had the appearance of
> a bullet's entry ... ."[68] On 11/23/63, the Dallas Morning News
> reported, "The front neck hole was described as an entrance wound,"
> and it quoted Perry to say, "It did however appear to be the entrance
> wound at the front of the throat." These press accounts, and others
> like them, accurately reflect the fact that at no time during the
> press conference did Perry allow for any other possibility than that
> the throat wound was an entrance wound.
>
> How did the Warren Report describe Perry's press conference
> statements? It reported, "Dr. Perry... stated to the press that a
> variety of possibilities could account for the President's
> wounds."[69] (Emphasis added) Whereas numerous press reports had
> accurately described Perry's belief the wound was one of entrance, the
> Warren Report cited only the New York Herald Tribune's vague and less
> accurate version. Ironically, Perry wasn't easily dislodged from his
> original position.
>
Yes, another example of the WC's many lies.
> The day after the murder Boston Globe medical reporter, Herbert Black,
> asked Perry how the throat wound could have been an entrance wound if
> the gunman was behind the President. Perry answered, "It may have been
> that the President was looking sideways with his head thrown back when
> the bullet or bullets struck him."[70] [It is of interest that, after
> discussing what was visible in the Zapruder film, Life Magazine
> offered this same explanation on December 18th for JFK's throat wound
> - that JFK had turned toward the sniper's nest just before being shot.
> [71] The Zapruder film, however, discloses no such turn. Neither the
> Warren Commission, nor Life Magazine, nor the government, ever
> corrected Life's error. This mischaracterization became but one of
> many exhibits cited by skeptics in criticizing the media's handling of
> JFK murder.[72] [73]]
>
Some errors do not have to be corrected officially because they are so
obvious.
> The Warren Commission's Arlen Specter was concerned about published
> reports from Perry's press conference. Presuming Oswald's guilt,
> Specter had proposed a theory that would defend that assumption, the
> so-called "Single Bullet Theory." This theory explained how it was
Only developed in late April 1964. At that time the WC still believed
the FBI's three shots, three hits scenario.
Nope. Clark agreed with Specter's characterization of his testimony as
indicating a wound on the TOP of the head.
> Gary
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Ed:
>
>Good post Ed.
>
>John F.
You think so, eh, John? Then you must not know Clark's testimony very
well. Note two things in what Cage quoted below,
First and foremost, he quotes Spector asking Clark about what he saw
when he first saw the President; then Cage quotes this ONE line:
"CLARK: The President was lying on his back on the emergency cart. (6
H 20)"
Then he goes on, without ellipses indication chunks of missing
testimony. and quotes the Spector question about the top of the head.
But WAIT! What was Clark's COMPLETE REPLY to that FIRST question?
You should know this, writing a book and all.
Ed left out Clark's description of the head wound. Here is Clark's
COMPLETE answer tio that first question from his testimony:
QUOTE
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
END QUOTE
Barb
>> Mr. SPECTER: 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?
>>
Anthony Marsh
"Briefly." Not forensically.