Andric Perez

Didn't Clark believe this wound included damage to the parietal region as well?

We are finding some consensus now. Earlier in this thread, Mr. Prudhomme said, "P.S. You obviously don't know the first thing about anatomy, Pat. In the centre of the back of the head, the occipital bone extends well above the level of the ears."

The Zapruder film alteration theory is one unintended casualty in this thread. Mr. Ward already stated that his views on film alteration have "evolved", when confronted about the fact that McClelland credits the film for his transformation from a "lone nut" theory supporter to a conspiracy theorist. Prudhomme needs some time to make the case for alteration without undermining McClelland's credibility. Please give him time. Perhaps you would like to show me, in Dr. Clark's WC Testimony, where Dr. Clark testifies that the large, gaping wound he saw in JFK's head (tangential or exit or otherwise) was anywhere but the right rear of JFK's head. Is it Speer's position that Clark placed the wound in a place other than the right-rear in his WC testimony? If so, please quote him.

The Zapruder film alteration theory is one unintended casualty in this thread. Mr. Ward already stated that his views on film alteration have "evolved", when confronted about the fact that McClelland credits the film for his transformation from a "lone nut" theory supporter to a conspiracy theorist. Prudhomme needs some time to make the case for alteration without undermining McClelland's credibility. Please give him time.

In the book Trauma Room 1, page 68, The aforementioned quote by Clark appears: "My God, the whole right side of the head is shot off". Link Guess who authored that book? Charles Crenshaw. Ever heard of him?

What you are about to see will embarrass you to a great degree: "The Parkland Hospital Our Heritage collection quotes Clark as having said, "My God, the whole right side of his head is shot off." Extracted from the same book cited by the National Enquirer: Link. Now you are being forced to trash the the author of the book, or the Parkland Hospital's Our Heritage collection, or both. After asking me if my main source is National Enquirer, you asked me if I get everything from patspeer.com. Make up your mind. What's my main source? Is it Allen Childs now? Or the Our Heritage collection?

You can answer your own question by looking for an instance where I said National Enquirer was my "main" source of research material. Or you can save yourself some time and admit you made that up.

In the National Enquirer article mentioned in the post preceding yours, we learn that Carrico places a big wound on the side of the head. To complicate matters even more, The Magnificent Director of Neurosurgery, Kemp Clark, is quoted as saying, in the same article, "“My God, the whole right side of his head is shot off. We’ve got nothing to work with.” This is the same Clark about whom a member said yesterday, "I find it hard to believe that the "head of neurosurgery" would be mistaken as to the location of a head wound. Yes, professionals do make mistakes, but rarely such obvious ones."

In fact, depending on the head-of-the-gurney doctors' point of view while they saw the wound (For example, JFK's head upside-down relative to the doctors' heads), this may be the worst view. Unfortunately, people continue to ignore the research cited by Speer.

When you learned about 9-11, was your attention divided between that tragedy and trying to make a President breathe by working on his throat in order to save his life? By the way, I don't remember what I was wearing on 911

I was under the impression that Speer had dedicaded only chapter 18d to the wound-location controversy. I now realize chapter 18c covers the matter extensively as well. In this chapter we learn that 4 witnesses before the Parkland doctors saw Kennedy described a wound on the right side (no mention of posterior location): Zapruder, the Newmans and Burkley.) What mental trick makes people view a large posterior wound as lateral, even if they all saw the wound very briefly? Without a convincing answer to this question, we will have to conclude that the back-of-the-head theory has suffered a severe blow in this thread and is now in defense mode. The Parkland witnesses are sandwiched between two sets of rivals: Bethesda and Dealy Plaza (plus themselves, as we have seen by reading their often self-contradictory statements).

Here's the line: HOWEVER, the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses, WITHOUT any communication between them, miraculously all placed the large gaping head wound at the BACK of JFK's head. What a frickin' coincidence, eh, Pat? All? If you've been following the thread on Groden's new book, you'll see that he's been caught trying to pass off a still shot from Stone's JFK as a previously unseen autopsy photo. His work with the "back of the head" witnesses was almost as misleading. The flip flops depicted in the picture above show how we should never disregard cognitive science, which has shown how people's recollections can change over time. It's as if Peters, Custer and O'connor were supporters of the Speer theory (left) and the back-of-the-head theory at the same time! (right).

It is true. The mysterious and controversial Babushka lady made that claim many years after JFK was killed. Anyway, What did other pre-Parkland witnesses say? (no cherrypicking).

A bad analogy is not sarcasm.

If I stand on my head and my big toe is bleeding, are you going to tell everyone I have a nosebleed? Please, do not insult our intelligence. The research cited by Speer dealt with distances between features within the face, which are inches away from each other. The doctors' opinions differ by inches. By using toe-to-nose distances (feet away from each other) as an example, you are the one who attempts to insult our intelligence. The Strawman fallacy comes to mind: "The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position." Link http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

144 replies later, nobody in this thread has bothered to discuss the research cited by Speer proving that looking at a human head upside-down (as in the case of any doctor who observed the wound while standing behind JFK's head in Parkland) significantly impairs one's ability to tell the location of features relative to the others. Commenters keep asking Speer why many witnesses placed the head in the occipital region, when they could have easily found out (by reading the website patspeer.com) that Speer explains why he thinks these location estimates were wrong. Similarly, the findings quoted by Speer proving that people have a symmetry bias (which may explain why some witnesses drew the wound in the exact center of the head) have been quoted by zero people in this thread. There may be several explanations as to why commenters are ignoring these topics: 1) They didn't read Speer's chapter because they thought it's too long to read. 2) They didn't read Speer's chapter because they thought it was too boring. 3) They are so confident that the location is in the back of the head that they thought, "I don't need to read anything new. I know what happened." Or a combination of the above.

Wait a minute, Ward. You are on record believing that the Zapruder film was altered in order to hide a conspiracy, yet you believe that this altered film turned a lone nut theorist into a conspiracy theorist? My,you sound angry Perez.Like Pat Speer,my opinion is evolving.I am williing to see past my own prejudices.And opinions,at times.I once thought that the Secret Service was not involved.I no longer hold that view.The Assassination happened,because the Secret Service was not protecting the President. You could easily say that Prudhomme seems angry (not "sounds angry", as he is not speaking, he's typing), but he is on your side of the argument. So you will pretend that those opposiing your view are angry, while you and those on your side are calm and collected. Not surprisingly, you claim to sense anger in Pat's words, too. Shocker! In fact, the likelihood of you being angry right now is high, as it was not your plan to tout testimony (McClelland's) that goes against the film alteration theory. Having stated that you believed the film was altered was supposed to be a secret, but now someone called you out on it, due to your reliance on the same film. That would make me angry. But it's ok. Evolving views happen all the time. Even in the case of "gunshot expert" McClelland. Now take a deep breath and relax. Your referal to me as Ward,made me think you are angry,unless you always use Surnames.I usually try to be polite,but when someone forgets their manners,I can do likewise.Hence Perez. Perez sounds more polite to me than being called by my first name. Keep it up!

Wait a minute, Ward. You are on record believing that the Zapruder film was altered in order to hide a conspiracy, yet you believe that this altered film turned a lone nut theorist into a conspiracy theorist? My,you sound angry Perez.Like Pat Speer,my opinion is evolving.I am williing to see past my own prejudices.And opinions,at times.I once thought that the Secret Service was not involved.I no longer hold that view.The Assassination happened,because the Secret Service was not protecting the President. You could easily say that Prudhomme seems angry (not "sounds angry", as he is not speaking, he's typing), but he is on your side of the argument. So you will pretend that those opposiing your view are angry, while you and those on your side are calm and collected. Not surprisingly, you claim to sense anger in Pat's words, too. Shocker! In fact, the likelihood of you being angry right now is high, as it was not your plan to tout testimony (McClelland's) that goes against the film alteration theory. Having stated that you believed the film was altered was supposed to be a secret, but now someone called you out on it, due to your reliance on the same film. That would make me angry. But it's ok. Evolving views happen all the time. Even in the case of "gunshot expert" McClelland. Now take a deep breath and relax.

Wait a minute, Ward. You are on record believing that the Zapruder film was altered in order to hide a conspiracy, yet you believe that this altered film turned a lone nut theorist into a conspiracy theorist?

McLelland once claimed to have seen a small wound in the "left temple." Even if you argue that he meant "right temple," McClelland added in 1963 to the St. Louis Post Dispatch (See Speer, ch. 18d): ""I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind." In a separate post in this thread, someone dismisses criticism of the Parkland doctors and nurses on the basis that they are "gunshot experts" whose word should be trusted. Do you trust the statement above?

Did Parkland doctors see the alleged "small wound in the right temple" described by Robinson?

Mr. MItcham, can you state that the professionals in the trauma room described "the wounds in the same way" after reading their statements throughout the years as documented by Pat Speer in chapter 18d of his website? Is it not true that McClelland and Baxter did not even agree with themselves?

Your quote curiously stopped immediately before the following text in the article, where McClelland continued: "The next injury was caused by somebody behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll firing a shot that blew out the right side of his head." Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/education/2013/10/18/Surgeon-in-ER-insists-2-gunmen-shot-JFK/stories/201310180137#ixzz2mbZa5dHm

okay, because you don't understand something, don't tell me what I am saying..or arguing. let me dumb it down and sterilize it for you so you can understand. point one. A number of its own members have stated since the late 60's early 70's that they thought the WCR wasn't conclusive in precluding a conspiracy..( or for you a PLOT ) as well as the SBT and other issues. This also includes non WCR members such as Lyndon " Kiss me I'm Bribable" Johnson aka Lynda B and Jessie Curry, DPD Clown Car Driver. This "special guest star" list of "officials" who didn't buy it is a long one. point two. because the french president aka cheese loving surrender man says Ford agreed with this, " Oswald didn't act alone/we fudged it/there was a plot" doesn't make it fresh. It's the same old cheesburger but this time Ford is the bacon. Have they re-invented the hamburger because they added bacon? no. point three the "core" of this story is " IT WAS A PLOT". this equals OLD NEWS. Everybody knows this. The French Prime minister is awful late in volunteering this non news and because it's Ford, while that may be a novel element to the story, the core "IT WAS A SETUP" is still old news. I know this is terribly exciting for you this third hand old NEWS ...here...I'll give you some news that isn't third hand: IT WAS A PLOT! here is another example...THE MOON IS NOT MADE OF CHEESE!!. Just because it's Ford, doesn't make it new. Just because it's the first time you have heard of it, doesn't make it new. Drinking and driving kills people every year... If Rob Ford of Toronto (the crack smoking clown mayor ) comes out and says this, it is not new or "news". we all know this already. it is made news because a crack smoking drunk driving mayor says it. there is a thing called "context" and without it, you run the risk of living a sad and confused life. or, like a dog, you get excited every time your owner comes home because while you recognise your owner, it is novel to you again. everyone knows there was a "plot" to kill Kennedy beacuse he is dead...old news. Move on and prosper. Something being plotis not the same as the fact that someone thinks it was a plot. The length of your explanation should give you a hint that you shouldn't have called this old news. We didn't know what Ford said. Period.

If a revelation is new, it's not old news. If we had known that the former French President had previously said that Ford believed in conspiracy this would be old news. Can you explain why you said it's "old news"? It's old news because; 1) with the exception of Roy Cohn bedmate David Belin and Physics Genius Darlin Specktor, almost everyone who would talk expressed doubt in the WCR findings after the fact. 2) Ford was an idiot shill so his opinion is pointless, former shoe in president or not. 3) if the Cheese eating French Prime minister knew this, why did he wait so long to beak off about it. 4) Lynda B already expressed his skepticism in the results, Curry and a long list of other folks came out over the years saying the results were bunk. Ford saying anything is not "new" . "people doubt the WCR" is not "new" or a revelation unless you have been living under a rock for the last 45 years or you are a six year old. And here's one simple reason why this is not "old news". Nobody knew before today that Gerald Ford told anyone privately that he believed a conspiracy took place. By the way, your reason #3 makes no logical sense whatsover. Here's what you are arguing: "The former French President never told anyone about this therefore it's "old news." Could anyone here please explain to me how that statement makes sense? Finally did Gerald Ford go by the nickname "Lynda B." or "Curry"?