Andric Perez

P.S. You missed your calling in life. You should have become a clinical psychologist. You would seem to have the magical ability to judge people's faculties from great distance; though some might call it "cherry picking".

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.

The cherry picking continues, Andric.

It sure does.

(from above, quoting Clint Hill)I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull." (Many years later, in numerous interviews and television appearances, Hill would clarify just what he meant by the right rear portion and would point to a location above his right ear.) and you wrote,While many people studying the Kennedy assassination have convinced themselves there was a blow-out wound involving chiefly occipital bone low on the back of Kennedys head, there is virtually nothing to support this in the earliest statements regarding Kennedys woundsIT IS A MYTH.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Clint Hill was a back of the head witness when he testified UNDER OATH.Sorry, but he was. Now he changes his recollection so he can show his mug on corporate media, suck up $$ for a book deal, and cover the FBI's ass.But the Parkland Medical Professionals, dedicated people with no affiliation with the government, are a myth? You got that backasswards.

Crites, 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.

Once again Pat... Not a soul says anything was wrong from the man's ear forward on either side...

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.

Once again Pat... Not a soul says anything was wrong from the man's ear forward on either side...

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.

"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

~~Mark Twain~~

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.

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.

Will Pat Speer ever tell us where he thought the fatal head shot originated from?

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.

Shot #3. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 310-311.

Hit Kennedy near the temple at frame 313. Bullet fragmented. One piece of its core seems to have continued on to chip the concrete near Tague around 319.

From: the sixth floor window of the TSBD

"And then he sort of did this (indicating), put his hand to his forehead and fell in his lap."

Perhaps I've been viewing the wrong Zapruder film, Pat, but mine does not show this "hand to his forehead" sequence. Be a good chap and tell us which frames this occurs in, would you?

"And then he sort of did this (indicating), put his hand to his forehead and fell in his lap."

Perhaps I've been viewing the wrong Zapruder film, Pat, but mine does not show this "hand to his forehead" sequence. Be a good chap and tell us which frames this occurs in, would you?

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.

^{DR MARION JENKINS}

^{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX58vrL5ZiA}

^{FOR ANDRIC/ PAT- see the 5:50 mark}

^!

Good find.

Pat - I am inclined to agree with you about those that argue the z film is altered. Assuming it was not, are you saying that you believe the evidence supports only shots from behind?

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]:

: "From: somewhere west of the Texas School Book Depository, possibly the railroad yards, but more probably the back of the arcade north of the grassy knoll, or the parking lot across the street. William Newman, and Abraham Zapruder, both facing the President, with the picket fence on their right and school book depository on their left, nevertheless felt the last shot came from behind them. Since a loud sound coming from behind them at this time would arrive but a split second after the sound of a third shot fired from the depository building, a sound's coming from this area would be likely to confuse Newman and Zapruder, and other witnesses nearby, and lead them to recall hearing but two shots. Sure enough, Newman, Zapruder, Mrs. Kennedy, Bobby Hargis, Clint Hill, and Paul Landis, could clearly recall but two shots, and those nearby Kennedy claiming they heard three shots mostly did so while claiming the last two shots were nearly simultaneous. A diversionary device set off in this location would, of course, draw attention from the buildings behind the President when he was shot. If this was the plan, of course...it worked. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the bulk of the Police and eyewitnesses looking for the shooter ran towards the grassy knoll and railroad yards, and ignored the buildings behind the motorcade."

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?

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.

Don't play games with us. You wouldn't be doing this if you didn't already know the answer.

I highly suspect what the answer is but I don't know it. Any comments on the answer itself?

Why not just read the first book yourself and find out?

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.

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?

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?

I realize it is not the popular yet I am going with the theory that ZFILM was at least partially filmed at 48fps if not entirely so that an alteration could be done quickly and easily to remove whatever may be objectionable...

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?

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.

The Zfilm does not match the recollections of those there (the evenly spaced shots).. there is no explanation for the missed shots, or even the "1st" shot, while suggesting as strongly as possible the SBT is supportable....

Pat, this has nothing to do with whether or not I believe the Harper fragment was occipital bone or not. There is no way I can prove or disprove the origin of the Harper fragment.

For you to ask me to do such a thing is merely a ploy on your part to distract attention away from the very difficult questions I have posed of you and Andric.

Dr. Kemp Clark's WC testimony clearly states the large, gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head to be in the occipital region of JFK's head. Contrary to what you say, I have provided medical definitions of "occipital region" that define it as an area of the head underlying the occipital bone. Dr. Clark, in later statements, describes the wound as being in the "occipital-parietal" region of JFK's head. Given the size of the wound described, this still places the wound, if it involves the occipital bone, well away from the top of the head.

Despite which of Dr. Clark's descriptions of the location of the large, gaping wound in the back of JFK's head is the most accurate, they have one thing in common; they are not visible in the official back of the head autopsy photo. Care to explain this discrepancy to us?

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.

The Newmans were not entirely credible in their testimony. She claimed that JFK stood up in the car at the first shot and put his hands over his head. Anyone else ever claim that?

Why would an objective person prefer their evidence over location of head wounds, over that of medical experts who viewed the wounds at a much closer distance?

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.

Exactly, John. This is the crucial point; we can analyze the medical testimony all we want, but the fact is NO ONE described seeing what the autopsy photos show.

Thus, we have two choices on what to believe. The first choice would be that the medical people at Parkland were so incompetent they not only misidentified the area where the wound was, they completely imagined a huge gaping wound in the head, since the photos show the head to be intact. The second choice, as many of us believe, is that the photos are simply not legitimate.

Nothing about JFK's autopsy was normal. As Harold Weisberg noted, it was not worthy of a Bowery bum. We should be skeptical of everything associated with it, and that certainly includes the x-rays and photographs.

Don't forget to complicate your second choice by adding that the side-of-the-head witnesses in Dealy Plaza were making stuff up.

duplicate.

Can you explain to us, as briefly as possible, why such a wound, beginning in the occipital region of JFK's head and extending into the parietal region of JFK's head, is not visible in the official autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head, Andric?

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

Show us the WC testimony, if you believe he did.

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 -