Parkland's Dr. Paul Peters to Gerald Posner: Dr. Robert McClelland WASN'T in the best position to see the head wound because he was on the OTHER SIDE of the table?

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Joseph McBride said:

All this going over old ground that has been covered in numerous books (etc.) is an apparent goal of some disinformation operatives who frequent this forum (and have been doing so with more frequency lately) to waste time and distract attention from genuine research. Most members here are interested in doing genuine research that attempts to advance the case, but not these other posters who have infested the site.

Calling other members (whoever they might be) "Disinformation operatives"  is most definitely against this forum's rules.

(Isn't it? It certainly should be anyway.)

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

And I never said McClelland capitulated. In fact, that was kind of my whole point---the fact that he didn't reverse his opinion regarding the location of JFK's head wound even after seeing this autopsy photo at the National Archives:

And then, after seeing the above photo at the Archives, McClelland comes up with his "Scalp Pulled Up Over The Wound" theory, which is completely ridiculous and impossible given the wholly undamaged condition of JFK's scalp in the photo above.

Dr. McClelland was, of course, trying his best to have it both ways concerning President Kennedy's head wound. But when logic and common sense enter the equation, it's quite clear that having it both ways is just not possible in this instance.

 

Please inform me as to how and where I have engaged in "a complete misrepresentation of McClelland". I look forward to seeing that.

I think you must be referring to other Lone Assassin believers who have stated in the past that McClelland completely reversed his position regarding JFK's head wounds in the 1988 NOVA special [see link below]. Because I have never said any such thing about Dr. Robert N. McClelland.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Odd Tales Of The Parkland Doctors On PBS-TV In 1988

 

"Please inform me as to how and where I have engaged in "a complete misrepresentation of McClelland". I look forward to seeing that.

I think you must be referring to other Lone Assassin believers who have stated in the past that McClelland completely reversed his position regarding JFK's head wounds in the 1988 NOVA special [see link below]. Because I have never said any such thing about Dr. Robert N. McClelland."

 

Yes you are right, I was totally mistaken. Sorry for that.
  I think he was having it both ways in that he was trying not to make waves which he did for years before and after. I think he did not believe what he was saying for the same reason you do, the scalp looks undamaged. That will probably be the most we would agree on.

[David Von Pein]

19 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

Yes you are right, I was totally mistaken. Sorry for that.

That's quite alright, Chris. And thank you for admitting you were mistaken. That's a refreshing thing to see here once in a while. 😁

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Chris Bristow]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The wound shown in the autopsy photos is on the right posterior part of the head, depending on how you define it. Hill and others have made it clear that the "back of the head" to them starts above the ear. And that's where the wound is shown in the photos. 

Many CTs, however, have long claimed that the witnesses claiming it was on the back of the head were claiming it was in the middle of the back of the head at the level of the ears. Some even claim it was directly between the ears. That way they can match the recollections of these witnesses with the claim the Harper fragment is occipital bone, and that the doctors thinking they saw cerebellum were correct in their assessment. 

I, on the other hand, have royally pissed people off by pointing out that you can't have it both ways. You can't say the witnesses saying it was right rear and pointing out a location above the ear are consistent with the Harper fragment's being occipital bone and the cerebellum being blasted and exposed. It's like saying someone pointing at the Sphinx was pointing at the pyramids. It might seem true from a distance but the closer you get the clearer it becomes...that they're blowing smoke. 

 

"The wound shown in the autopsy photos is on the right posterior part of the head, depending on how you define it." Well if we could define it as posterior you would see it in the back of the head photo. It may just be my opinion but your spin is so absurd I can't take it seriously. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The wound shown in the autopsy photos is on the right posterior part of the head, depending on how you define it.

 

LOL.... what?

The back-of-head photo shows no gaping wound anywhere on the posterior part of the head. It's all intact scalp with hair.

Now if your definition of "posterior" is "top," then yes, there is very much a hole there! But none of those folks in your collage are pointing at the top of the head. They are all pointing to the area with intact scalp and hair.

 

[Pat Speer]

33 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

"The wound shown in the autopsy photos is on the right posterior part of the head, depending on how you define it." Well if we could define it as posterior you would see it in the back of the head photo. It may just be my opinion but your spin is so absurd I can't take it seriously. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Pat Speer]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

 

LOL.... what?

The back-of-head photo shows no gaping wound anywhere on the posterior part of the head. It's all intact scalp with hair.

Now if your definition of "posterior" is "top," then yes, there is very much a hole there! But none of those folks in your collage are pointing at the top of the head. They are all pointing to the area with intact scalp and hair.

 

The words anterior and posterior relate to which half of the body. Something on the top of the head towards the back would be on the posterior side of the skull. A lot of the confusion about all this stems, moreover, from most CTs being too freakin' lazy to read a medical book or an anatomy book. 

[Sandy Larsen]

 

I have two comments on this image.

First, the back-of-head photo of (alleged) Kennedy is tilted back, and so cannot be directly compared to the back-of-head photo of Tattoo Man.

Second, photo #1 is inconsistent with photo #3. The gaping hole in #1 extends to the back of the head, and yet isn't seen at all in #3. This is yet another piece of evidence indicating that photo #3 is a fake.

 

[David Von Pein]

27 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The gaping hole in #1 extends to the back of the head, and yet isn't seen at all in #3.

You're wrong, Sandy. The "gaping hole" in #1 doesn't extend to the BACK of the head at all. What you evidently think is part of the  "gaping hole" is merely blood and brain adhering to JFK's hair at the TOP of his head. But the HOLE is nowhere near the BACK of the head (i.e., "occipital" or "posterior").

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

27 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I have two comments on this image.

First, the back-of-head photo of (alleged) Kennedy is tilted back, and so cannot be directly compared to the back-of-head photo of Tattoo Man.

Second, photo #1 is inconsistent with photo #3. The gaping hole in #1 extends to the back of the head, and yet isn't seen at all in #3. This is yet another piece of evidence indicating that photo #3 is a fake.

 

Where do you get that the back of the head is missing in photo 1? You realize the back of the head is sitting on a head rest, right? On what planet do autopsy physicians put gaping wounds on head rests when taking photos? 

[Sandy Larsen]

28 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The words anterior and posterior relate to which half of the body. Something on the top of the head towards the back would be on the posterior side of the skull. A lot of the confusion about all this stems, moreover, from most CTs being too freakin' lazy to read a medical book or an anatomy book. 

 

We know they were using layman's terms and not anatomical because of where they pointed on their heads indicating the location of the blowout wound. They all pointed to the backs/posteriors of their heads. (Yes, I know... right-posterior.) And that's the term they used in their statements and testimonies.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Where do you get that the back of the head is missing in photo 1? You realize the back of the head is sitting on a head rest, right? On what planet do autopsy physicians put gaping wounds on head rests when taking photos? 

 

Not the whole back of the skull is missing. Just the upper part near the cowlick. I can see right through where that portion of the skull should be, and can see a block or something resting on the table. If there were skull bone there, it would block the view of that block.

 

[David Von Pein]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I can see right through where that portion of the skull should be, and can see a block of some kind resting on the table.

What you're probably seeing is the metal headrest, not a "block".

Edited September 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

5 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

What you're probably seeing is the metal headrest, not a "block".

 

Well if that is a metal headrest, only the left side of his skull is resting on it. Because I can see the top of its right side. There no skull there to rest on it.

 

[David Von Pein]

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well if that is a metal headrest, only the left side of his skull is resting on it. Because I can see the top of its right side. There no skull there to rest on it.

It's the headrest you're seeing, Sandy. The headrest kind of wraps around the head, as is easily seen in the photo showing the left side of JFK's head below: