info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Clark Panel Conclusions
35 views
Skip to first unread message
David Von Pein
Aug 27, 2021, 8:28:22 PM8/27/21
to
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html
[Quote From Clark Panel Report:]
"The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."
[End Quote.]
This part of the above Clark Panel excerpt deserves a replay and added emphasis:
**** "There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..." ****
In addition, the 1968 Clark Panel confirmed, via measurements, that the bullet hole in JFK's throat was located 3.5 centimeters LOWER (anatomically) than the bullet wound in the his upper back. And that's something (i.e., the back wound being HIGHER than the throat wound) that I have always said was true, despite the HSCA's ridiculous conclusion to the contrary....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-back-wound-location.html
So I'd say that the 1968 Clark Panel Report is quite a useful document indeed---for just the two conclusions talked about above (if for no other reason).
Related Quote:
"There was clearly a track between the wound in the back of the body and the wound in the front of the neck." -- Dr. Russell S. Fisher; January 1969
Watch Dr. Fisher make the above statement on the CBS Evening News on January 17, 1969 (video below):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XkxmHGLrHE86GF_spnVceHaM6ti3wQRH/view
[Quote From Clark Panel Report:]
"The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."
[End Quote.]
This part of the above Clark Panel excerpt deserves a replay and added emphasis:
**** "There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..." ****
In addition, the 1968 Clark Panel confirmed, via measurements, that the bullet hole in JFK's throat was located 3.5 centimeters LOWER (anatomically) than the bullet wound in the his upper back. And that's something (i.e., the back wound being HIGHER than the throat wound) that I have always said was true, despite the HSCA's ridiculous conclusion to the contrary....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-back-wound-location.html
So I'd say that the 1968 Clark Panel Report is quite a useful document indeed---for just the two conclusions talked about above (if for no other reason).
Related Quote:
"There was clearly a track between the wound in the back of the body and the wound in the front of the neck." -- Dr. Russell S. Fisher; January 1969
Watch Dr. Fisher make the above statement on the CBS Evening News on January 17, 1969 (video below):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XkxmHGLrHE86GF_spnVceHaM6ti3wQRH/view
healyd...@gmail.com
Aug 27, 2021, 8:47:21 PM8/27/21
to
Tim Brennan
Aug 29, 2021, 7:40:26 AM8/29/21
to
We ALL know that you struggle to cobble together a literate sentence, Dave/Ringo,; MUCH less mount a COHERENT argument!!
On ANY matter...
Your [sic] all BULL, Dave/Ringo! As is the COWARDLY and LYING Benny (Yellow Pants) Holmes.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Ben Holmes
Aug 30, 2021, 9:59:22 AM8/30/21
to
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 16:56:14 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html
>
>[Quote From Clark Panel Report:]
What you cannot do, of course - is DEBATE the facts here.
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html
>
>[Quote From Clark Panel Report:]
You'll run like the coward you are if I ask just one simple question:
How long did the Clark Panel study the evidence?
0 new messages