From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Clark Panel
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:50:00 GMT
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <schuck.702773758@sfu.ca>, Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes...
>> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>>> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...


>>>The photograph showing the rear head of the president is a forgery, or
>>>a composition. The head wound extends to the back of the head, as all
>>>the Parkland people said it did.

>>	Unfortunately, you have yet to show any substantiative proof of
>>	this. So far as I can tell, the only reason you claim it to be a
>>	forgery is that it doesn't show what you want it to. Dr. McClelland's
>>	(Along with Drs. Dulany, Jenkins, and, I believe, Clark) testimony 
>>	confirms that the autopsy photos --including the 'forged' one-- 
>>	*do*, in fact, show the wounds they remember seeing. I don't
>>	think there's any way around that.


>Dr McClellands record of JFK's head wound also says there was a wound
>in JFK's *left* temple. CE392 v.17 p12 of the 'Exhibits'.

	McClelland backed off thie statement *years* ago. He is, I believe,
	the only one of the Parkland doctors who saw a wound in the
	left temple.

>Jenkins and Clark also stated they saw cerebellum in the
>head wound. 

	They could have mistaken badly lacerated cerebral tissue
	for cerebellum. Also, the photo of the brain (or at least 
	Ida Dox's redering of it) shows that most of the right
	side of the cerebrum was blown away.  Lattimer, who saw
	the photo, estimates that 70% of the right cerebral tissue
	was missing. All that was left of a good deal of the right
	cerebral hemisphere looks to be a relatively thin layer
	of the base of the hemisphere (ok, so the descrition sounds
	wierd. sue me. think about it). It is quite possible that
	the force of the bullet could have lifted, twisted around,
	or otherwise re-oriented the rear of the right Cer. Hemi.
	so that the cerebellum would be exposed.

	In light of McClelland's statement on NOVA, along with
	Jenkins' apparent approval of it, I don't think it's
	a problem.   
	


>>	The wound *does* extend into the occipital (that's clear from
>>	the body of descriptions taken from Parkland, the autopsy, and
>>	the descriptions of the autopsy materials. As McClelland said,
>>	the photo in question shows a flap of skin pulled out over the
>>	wound. This apparently was done in order to clearly show the
>>	small entry wound in the back of the head.

>The occipital is the rear of the head.
>How did a bullet enter in the rear and leave from the rear?

	The wound isn't solely in the the occipital. McClelland's
	report has the wound extending *at least* halfway into the 
	parietal bone. The exit of the largest bullet fragment (a
	globular lump of core) is at the forward margin of this
	wound. 

	Now, think about a circle. Now think about the set of parallel
	lines that pass through the circle. Now let the circle have
	a front and a back. Orient the front of the circle so that
	it faces at some angle other than 0 degrees with the lines
	(about 40-45 degrees in the case of JFK).



>>	All of the official reports I've read, from Parkland, Bethseda,
>>	and the various committees seem to be talking about the
>>	same wound. There are differences in the description of them
>>	are, really, fairly minor, and resemble other instances where
>>	different people have differed as to the fine details of an
>>	event while agreeing on the general situation.

>Minor?

Minor.

>There are major differences in description.
>The big difference is that the Parkland Doctors, and some of the
>SS agents saw an large exit wound in the back of the head.

	The SS agents and the Parkland doctors saw a large wound
	in the back of the head. Their interpetation was that the
	wound was an exit wound. That's what Bethseda found, that's
	what the Clark panel, the Rockafeller panel, the HSCA, et al
	found and determined. However, closer inspection of the
	head wound (ie, the notch/conical defect at the forward
	margin of the head wound, along with the distribution
	of the bullet fragments) shows that the bullet passed
	from back to front, not from front to back.



>Bethesda said there was a small entrance wound in the back of the
>head and an exit wound in the right temple.
	
	You might want to read the autopsy, or at least read it more
	carefully. Where did Humes report say that the wound was in the
	temple?

	Humes: "...there is a large wound, cheifly in the parietal, but
	extending somewhat into the occipital and temporal..."

	McClelland: a wound extending from the occipital region well
	into the parietal (He claimed that he saw the rear half of
	the pareietal bone broken off)


                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\