Jump to content
The Education Forum

Andric Perez

Members
  • Posts

    192
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andric Perez

  1. Crites' calling is way cooler. He should be a mentalist who knows Clint Hill is a lying book-deal hunter. Now tell us. Does being under oath guarantee that a witness is right or truthful? If your answer is no, should Crites stop emphasizing the phrase "under oath"? Dont be afraid to disagree with him. Its ok.
  2. 4Crites, you love to emphasize the phrase, "under oath," but if anyone pointed to top-of-the-head testimony by top-of-the-head witnesses UNDER OATH, you would pooh pooh it anyway. You say Parkland witness are awesome due to their lack of affiliation to the government, but Zapruder, among others, was not affiliated to the government. Giesecke and Salyer were not affiliated to the government, yet I guarantee you dont like their testimony.
  3. That's false. That's Zapruder above. In addition to him and the other witnesses mentioned by Speer, Vincent Palamara posted a letter in this forum from Parkland doctor Donald Seldin stating ""The bullet struck the President in the forehead and literally exploded in his skull, so that the entire frontal, parietal and temporal bones were shattered." Also, D. Jenkins told the WC that "there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process." The zygomatic process is forward relative to the ear. The fact that Jenkins said "left temporal area" shouldn't be used as an excuse to dismiss his testimony, because McClelland once claimed to see a wound on the left side too, yet this does not keep back-of-the-head theorists from considering him to be a kick-ass witness anyway. Jenkins is supposedly a kick-ass witness as well, owing to his title of Parkland doctor. Nice Andric... Ask a snotty Q about Audrey Bell... I go ahead and address it and you go with the one person who confirms a shot from the front which shattered bone... NOT that bone was missing as is shown in those farce xrays you and Pat think are authentic. He described what the lateral xray TRIES to show happened in the back... a small hole, radiating cracks resulting in a huge opening in the front... Yes Andric, those that were there say he was hit in the right temple just like Zap... the cracks would of course radiate from that wound yet a hole is seen in the right rear, the occipital bone... by a host of people in a post you seem to have also missed... Dr. Jenkin's "wound"... (let's try to remember his head was blown up, k?) is what to you? a bone fragment flying out his head? Father Huber called it a terrible wound as well... not a bullet hole... Only McClellend - as cause of death, right?... maybe THAT shot caused the hole in the right rear while the right temple shot simply exploded his skull into fractures.... one exploding one FMJ very high speed... ?? Either way the WCR's evidence is a crock... there were shots from the rear/side that missed JFK and hit JC, one hit from the back represents all the HITS from the rear, imo. Jenkins is a "kick-ass witness" and precisely since he was less than 2 feet from the man less than 20 minutes after the incident... that he reversed himself for Posner is, well, understandable I guess... "if they kill a POTUS y'know..." . McClellend writing LEFT Temple... is what it is. I have to think he meant right since to the two others who saw that wound, it was not called out as a bullet hole. What is more telling here is that the entire RIGHT SIDE popping open and missing ala the xrays is not even noted by this ER Dr. Do you have anything other than "wound" to go on as all I've read is supposition that it was a shot there. -------------- Pat, doesn't one of your slides ask why the tearing of the scalp around the wound you're describing now, does not occur like it does in the example you offer - or did I read that wrong? If you argue blood splatter back and the opening of the skull and scalp, that should be a clean thru and thru hole right there... and 100% proof of a shot from behind hitting him... THE primae facia case for the FBI and all they need do is stick a probe thru that hole into his head... take a photo, take an xray and we be DONE... Medical proof of a shot entering from the rear and out the side of his head... But they didn't do that Pat... how come? David, you used a blanket statement: "Not a soul" saw "damage" to an area in front of the ear. That's what got you in trouble. Blanket statements such as "everyone in the room," "always," "nothing" etc. are a hallmark of back-of-the-head theorists and should be avoided when possible. Under scrutiny, your blanket statement now turns into "Not a Josephs-approved, non-Dealy-Plaza soul not being quoted by Posner says there was damage non-small damage to the front of either ear." But there's more. Here's what Parkland doctor Adolph Giesecke told the Warren Commission: Dr. GIESECKE - It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing. And if we assume that Giesecke meant the right side, then we can add him to the list of witnesses who prove your blanket statement wrong.
  4. That's false. That's Zapruder above. In addition to him and the other witnesses mentioned by Speer, Vincent Palamara posted a letter in this forum from Parkland doctor Donald Seldin stating ""The bullet struck the President in the forehead and literally exploded in his skull, so that the entire frontal, parietal and temporal bones were shattered." Also, D. Jenkins told the WC that "there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process." The zygomatic process is forward relative to the ear. The fact that Jenkins said "left temporal area" shouldn't be used as an excuse to dismiss his testimony, because McClelland once claimed to see a wound on the left side too, yet this does not keep back-of-the-head theorists from considering him to be a kick-ass witness anyway. Jenkins is supposedly a kick-ass witness as well, owing to his title of Parkland doctor.
  5. Here's a summary of the responses so far regarding Audrey Bell's presence (or absence) in the room where JFK died: Response #1) Joseph: Miss Bowron is a back of the head witnesses. Response #2) Prudhomme: "Idiot!" Could anyone identify the names of the logical fallacies above? Anyway, please help restore Bell's credibility by addressing the claim that she may have made it all up.
  6. What do you guys think of Speer's assertion that Parkland nurse Audrey Bell, who claimed to have seen a wound on the lowest part of the occipital bone, probably wasn't even in the trauma room? Speer: "But there are two problems with Bell. One is that Bell has no credibility, as there's no evidence whatsoever, beyond her latter-day say-so, that she was even in the room with Kennedy." Link Bell's drawing of the wound was so odd that probably no one in this thread would agree that it's accurate, as it has no overlap whatsoever with the parietal bone. This sub-topic gives back-of-the-head theorists an opportunity to restore Bell's credibility.
  7. By now, we all know that Pat Speer has a website. Even the exact chapter dealing with his opinion about the source of the shots was linked to previously in this thread. Here it is again: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter20%3Aconclusionsandconfusions%3A I understand that it takes a great deal of effort for some to grab a mouse and click on a link, but the effort is worthwhile in my opinion. Prudhomme, earlier you wanted me to go out and buy Crenshaw's book or travel to my nearest library because I did not know its contents. I assure you that visiting a website is way easier and practical.
  8. Perhaps Zapruder wasn't standing to the left of JFK, where he could have kept track of his left hand (if he took his left hand to the forehead). Perhaps JFK's forehead was partially covered by stuff coming off his head; and perhaps this was one of the blurriest groups of frames in the Zapruder film as his camera shook significantly. Now you be a good chap and go find that back-of-the-head wound in the film.
  9. Speer presents what he believes to be a likely scenario, with 4 or more shots fired: a shot after the fatal frame-313 (or alternatively, a firecracker used a diversionary tool). As part his scenario, the other 3 or 4 shots were fired from behind (TSBD and another location, most likely the Dal-Tex building). One-paragraph excerpt from his website [discussing the shot after the fatal shot]:
  10. Andric, I have Conspiracy Of Silence by Crenshaw, Hansen and Shaw, and on page 78&79: Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear, and; part of his brain, the cerebellum, was dangling from the back of his head by a single strand of tissue, and; blood was still seeping from the wound onto the gurney, dripping into the kick bucket on the floor. He also definitely clarifies the wound in the (front of the) neck was an entrance wound Thank you very much.
  11. I highly suspect what the answer is but I don't know it. Any comments on the answer itself?
  12. Unlike Trauma Room 1, the first book is not available online. It would be much faster if a person who owns the book (or has read it) types the answer here, instead of me buying it because Prudhomme wants me to. Then again, I understand why you may not be in a rush to find out the answer.
  13. I'd like to ask for clarification from anyone here who read Dr. Crenshaw's books, "Conspiracy of Silence," (1992) and "Trauma Room 1," (2001) which was a re-print of the former . The McAdams website states that in the first book, Conspiracy of Silence, Crenshaw says about JFK's head wound: "Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater, an empty cavity." But I browsed through Trauma Room 1 and could not find the quote above. Instead, I found a very similar one: "Pg 67: The right occipital parietal portion of his brain appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater--an empty cavity." Link The two possibilities are: 1) McAdams is misquoting the first book, or 2) Crenshaw downplayed the non-occipital portion of the wound for his convenience the second time around. "Right occipital parietal portion" can be spun to be mostly occipital, and only a bit parietal; however, "entire right cerebral hemisphere" is a different story. Is it 1 or 2?
  14. You said the film was made at the speed you specified "so that an alteration could be done quickly and easily to remove whatever may be objectionable," yet at the same time you believe that the film clearly shows a shooter from the right front. But isn't a shooter from the right from one of the most--if not the most--, "objectionable" things imaginable to the alleged film fakers? How could the alteration have been done "easily" if the presence of a shooter from this position was "obvious" (in your opinion) at the end? Another question. Why did McClelland --with all his alleged expertise on gunshot wounds-- have to wait for the Zapruder film to conclude that more than one shooter was involved, if the drawing commissioned Josiah Thompson's drawing of McClelland's wound description is correct? I mean, doesn't the drawing show a huge wound at the back of the head? And if we couple the drawing with the alleged small wound McClelland saw in the left temple (and if we assume he meant "right temple,") shouldn't that information alone be an obvious indication to him that at least 2 shooters were involved? Or did McClelland think (prior to watching the film) that the small entrance was an exit and the huge wound was an entry?
  15. Earlier in the thread, Mr. Ward gave up on his Zapruder-alteration views upon learning that McClelland said that watching the Zapruder Film is what made him turn into a CT. Ward had to throw either his altertionist views or McClelland under the bus, and he chose the former. Do you still maintain that the film was both "quickly and easily" removed unwanted elements in order to bolster the lone-nutter theory, while at the same time convincing McClelland of the opposite?
  16. This is the drawing made by McClelland of the large wound in 1988, in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." The image as shown in Speer's website is so bright that no details can be made out, at least in my computer; so I increased the contrast. Please discuss what you see.
  17. May I suggest that it is not the case that most witnesses have described the shots as being evenly spaced?
  18. The Harper Fragment is giving Prudhomme headaches. Earlier, he sought to defend the possibility of this fragment being occipital, by stating that the occipital bone extends "well beyond" the top of the ear. Now he is backing off and simply dismissing discussion on this fragment as irrelevant.
  19. She said raised up, not stood up. One Newman is not the Newmans. One Newman is not Zapruder One Newman is not Salyer. One Newman is not Ed Hoffman McClelland said he saw a wound in the left temple, which is kookier than to say JFK raised up at the time of the 1st shot. You are saying Carrico is not an objective person, as he said in 1992 that doctors were mistaken in their back-of-the-head recollections. Carrico is not a Newman.
  20. Don't forget to complicate your second choice by adding that the side-of-the-head witnesses in Dealy Plaza were making stuff up.
  21. It is possible that Carrico is correct in stating the following in 1992: "We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound... and I think we were mistaken ... We saw a large wound on the right side of the head. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5364.0
  22. At one point in his WC testimony Clark was explaining that JFK may have had trouble reading had he survived. He mentioned the lost parts of brain that he thought would cause this reading deficit: "The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes would have been of specific importance. This would have led to a visual field deficit, which would have interfered in a major way with his ability to read, not the interpretation of reading matter per se, but the acquisition of information from the printed page. This is consistent with Clark's words the day of the assassination, when he wrote: "There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the skull appeared gone at brief examination . The previously described lacerated brain was present. By this time an EKG was hooked up. There was no electrical activity of the heart and no respiratory effort - He was pronounced dead at 1300 hrs by me. W. Kemp Clark 22 Nov 1963 1615 hrs -
×
×
  • Create New...