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?

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

Yes, and they pointed to a location about half-way between where the wound is shown on the autopsy photos and where it is shown on the McClelland drawing, and other drawings. 

So why does a location half-way between two places confirm the accuracy of the drawings, and totally debunk photos showing the other location? It doesn't, right?

I mean, let's put this in context. Your distant cousin tells you that your dad owned a brown Lincoln in 1963. And then you find an old photo with your dad behind the wheel in a green Cadillac. And then you ask your dad what he owned and he says he owned a brown Cadillac. Common sense tells you that you either accept what your dad said or accept that he'd made a mistake and that his Cadillac was actually green. But when it comes to this case all too many embrace the illogical, and declare that since dad said his car was brown, that he must have meant that he'd had a brown Lincoln. 

My question is WHY? Why either assume the wound was on the far back of the head below the ears OR defend the accuracy of drawings (such as the McClelland drawing) that place the wound inches too low on the back of the head from where the witnesses claimed it was? 

I don't get it. Why can't people who get angry as F about government deception, or LN deception, get upset about the deceptions of Livingstone and Groden, etc? 

Is it so hard to spit up the Kool-Aid? 

Edited September 6, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Guest]

"Human duplicity is a marvel to contemplate."

(Ok, I'll admit, I've stolen that from  a certain review I recently read)

I used to think it had to do with age, experience,.... stuff like that, but it's not.

It's simply because we are all different.  Some just have a really really really hard time admitting they are wrong, or know nothing about a subject.  I'm not saying, quote "Opposites are not contradictory but complementary", hmmm, nah... 

My kids are opposites, it took me years to get them "to agree to disagree", sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't,  and when it doesn't I'll hide for cover just in case another book comes flying over my head all across the living room...

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Micah Mileto]

On 9/6/2022 at 6:04 AM, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

"Human duplicity is a marvel to contemplate."

(Ok, I'll admit, I've stolen that from  a certain review I recently read)

I used to think it had to do with age, experience,.... stuff like that, but it's not.

It's simply because we are all different.  Some just have a really really really hard time admitting they are wrong, or know nothing about a subject.  I'm not saying, quote "Opposites are not contradictory but complementary", hmmm, nah... 

My kids are opposites, it took me years to get them "to agree to disagree", sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't,  and when it doesn't I'll hide for cover just in case another book comes flying over my head all across the living room...

 

There is no such thing as maturity, there are only changed opinions. The changing of one's opinion is not a magical marker for an objective truth about the world. It terrifies me how people age-shame using "maturity" a a justification, when if anything, one believing in maturity is a sign of immaturity! It's like saying "My favorite color used to be red, but then I grew up and realized blue was the best color".

Edited September 10, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

On 9/5/2022 at 8:40 PM, 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:

 

On 9/5/2022 at 8:40 PM, David Von Pein said:

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

 

I'm not even saying that I personally think the cerebellum was blasted out, but I found this (date 2012 maximum) McClelland lecture where he insists that he saw cerebellum, and spoke of having a previous conversation with Dr. Marion "Pepper" Jenkins where they "agreed to disagree" over whether they saw cerebellum that day. 14 minutes in, and on 32:30 he talks about the photographs.

 

https://ia600603.us.archive.org/24/items/Dr.RobertN.Mcclelland/DrMcclelland.mp3

Edited September 10, 2022 by Micah Mileto