Robert Prudhomme Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 You have lots to say about testimony, Pat. Is there a reason you are not answering my question about Robert Frazier's testimony to the WC on the other thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Hey Pat, I thought you said earlier that anything told to us by an old man is unreliable because his memory is shot. Or does that just apply to Parkland doctors and not to Clint Hill, who has had an "improvement" in his memory in the last ten years? Clint Hill clarified something late in life. There's no evidence he changed his mind. But you're right. He could be wrong. As far as the Parkland doctors--the key doctors either accepted the conclusions of the Warren Commission, or deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos. So it is you, I'm afraid, who finds them unreliable. As far as McClelland, he was unreliable long before he got old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) (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.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. Edited January 16, 2014 by Andric Perez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 And yet, Pat, when a Parkland doctor, in his eighties, recalls what he saw on 22/11/63, you tell us his memory is shot. Don't you think it possible that Hill's memory has become "shot", as you put it, in the last ten years? Aren't you being hypocritical here? 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) The cherry picking continues, Andric. Edited January 16, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 The cherry picking continues, Andric. It sure does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Andric, he testified to a back of the head wound. Now he's saying something differently. I guess in the JFK assassination that's excusable for some, but not for all. He also testified to a back wound way to low for it to validate the silly sbt. And he says Oswald was the sole assassination. I guess in the JFK assassination, that's excusable for some, but not for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) It's not that Hill and other back of head witnesses may have gotten the location of the head wound wrong in their testimony, it's that they all got it wrong in roughly the same place, and in a location not visible on the autopsy photos. Pat and Andric, don't you suspect some kind of a "conspiracy" here amongst these witnesses? Edited January 16, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I would like to think the consensus here is that the bullet hit the temporal area, and plowed it's way out of the back on the right side. that would make sense why some saw a side wound, some said it extended to above the ear, some saw the massive hole in the back. When we round up all the interviews and testimony of these witnesses, one can come to that conclusion easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) It's not that Hill and other back of head witnesses may have gotten the location of the head wound wrong in their testimony, it's that they all got it wrong in roughly the same place, and in a location not visible on the autopsy photos. Pat and Andric, don't you suspect some kind of a "conspiracy" here amongst these witnesses? I don't suspect conspiracy between Parkland doctors, and once again you refuse to read Speer's website, in which he cites research explaining how the orientation of the head has an impact on accuracy when it comes to identifying the space between features. The research is about perception, not about conspiracy; therefore your question has already been answered. But again, as I explained earlier, some people believe they don't need to read opposing views because they possess the truth, so it's a waste of time to bother reading such material. You seem to be in that group. One who does believe there was a conspiracy among Parkland doctors was, ironically, Charles Crenshaw, but in the opposite direction. Do you believe in his conspiracy theory? Finally, tell me about the conspiracy by Zapruder, the Willis couple, etc. Edited January 17, 2014 by Andric Perez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I would like to think the consensus here is that the bullet hit the temporal area, and plowed it's way out of the back on the right side. that would make sense why some saw a side wound, some said it extended to above the ear, some saw the massive hole in the back. When we round up all the interviews and testimony of these witnesses, one can come to that conclusion easily. Aha, we're getting somewhere. I would agree that, if one were to compile the statements of all the PARKLAND witnesses, and disregard the others, one might come to the conclusion the bullet entered on the side of the head and exited at the back. Based upon the photos taken by Groden, etc, I would argue that this wound was primarily parietal, however. And definitely NOT low on the back of the head below the level of the ear on the occipital bone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) It's not that Hill and other back of head witnesses may have gotten the location of the head wound wrong in their testimony, it's that they all got it wrong in roughly the same place, and in a location not visible on the autopsy photos. Pat and Andric, don't you suspect some kind of a "conspiracy" here amongst these witnesses? By not heeding my advice to Josephs to avoid blanket statements such as "all," "always," "nobody," etc., you made a mistake, in my opinion. You said that all head witnesses were described "roughly" the same wound location. How "roughly" did Audrey Bell and Dr. Salyer describe the wound to be in the same spot? There are two words that are commonly used by people who are hedging their bets: "roughly," and "could." I hate it when I see website with headlines screaming (for example). The NSA metadata program "could" be unconstitutional. No xxxx, Sherlock, I think to myself. Why doesn't the journalist tell us whether he believes the program is constitutional or not? In the case of "roughly," which you used, the room for spin is tremendous. Edited January 16, 2014 by Andric Perez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 And, you obviously being a spin doctor, this should make you happy, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 (I love this thread- best one on the forum) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now