Dr. Robert McClelland: ‘a story he feels compelled to share’

The doctor who tried to save JFK’s life shows a memento of a terrible day to WFAA-TV in Dallas. On this occasion, he appropriately chose not share what he has said elsewhere at length: The nature of the president’s wounds indicated he had been shot from the front and the back.

I say appropriately because Dr. McClelland, as a witness, has no obligation to interpret the evidence and draw conclusions, only to share what he saw. His views are well-known to anyone who cares to know them.

 

361 comments

  1. The narrator says, “McClelland didn’t know how bad the situation really was until he worked his way into a crowded emergency room”

    Hasn’t Dr. McClelland said repeatedly that he looked at JFK before they took him in the ER and knew “we couldn’t help him?” Isn’t he the one who said they only treated him because he was the president?

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      NO. “As Dr. McClelland and I approached, Dr. Malcom Perry, the assistant professor of surgery blurted that he and Dr. Jim Carrico, the physician who had first entered the room, had already inserted an endotracheal tube down the President’s throat. …
      Blood was seeping from the wound in his head onto the gurney,dripping into he kick bucket on the floor below. Then I noticed a small opening in the midline of his throat. It was small, about the size of the tip of my little finger. It was a bullet entry wound. There was no doubt in my mind about that wound, as I had seen dozens of them in the emergency room. At that point I knew he had been shot at least twice.”
      Dr. Charles Crenshaw, pg. 62, Trauma Room One.

      • What I remember him saying was something like, when I first saw him, I knew there was nothing we could do for him, but we decided that, because he was the president, if we didn’t treat him there would always be people who would say he would have lived if only we had treated him so we decided to treat him.

        Maybe this did transpire but I somehow thought it took place on the way to the ER. That probably would not make sense with the ER on the second floor.

      • Of course, Dr. McClelland and Crenshaw actually came into the ER after Perry had cut through the neck wound to create a passage for a tube.

        Unfortunately for Crenshaw, McClelland told the Warren Commission that the tracheostomy was already begun and the throat wound obliterated when he arrived. The following is from 6H32:

        Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe, if anything, as to the status of the neck wound when you first arrived?

        Dr. McCLELLAND. The neck wound, when I first arrived, was at this time converted into a tracheotomy incision. The skin incision had been made by Dr. Perry, and he told me—although I did not see that—that he had made the incision through a very small, perhaps less than one quarter inch in diameter wound in the neck.

        Perry confirmed McClelland’s account when he told the Warren Commission that, at the time he began the tracheostomy, McClelland was not present and he (Perry) instructed that he be called (3H369). He also said that McClelland arrived “shortly after” he had entered the neck (3H370). Further, Perry said that he and Carrico were the only people who saw the unaltered wound, and McClelland did not see the wound (3H377).

        So either Crenshaw’s claim to have entered the ER with McClelland is untrue, or his claim to have seen the unaltered neck wound is untrue. Since McClelland confirms that he entered the Emergency Room with Crenshaw (6H31), it seems that Cranshaw gave a vivid description of a throat wound he never saw.

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm

  2. greg says:

    Jeff Morley said it best 2 years ago when Dr McClelland told his story via Skype at the Pittsburg conference. Jeff stated that he was “an Unimpeachable” witness. I believe this will always hold up, and can not wait to see the new Parkland Doctors documentary.

  3. Note that McClelland told Jacob Carter that the autopsy photos match the wounds as he remembers them from the Parkland ER:

    https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/UcdqNlVPCZo/184Cr6IYAAAJ

    Q. What do you think happened for the rear wound to be covered up in the autopsy photos?

    A. Well, I think it’s only that one picture. I discounted that picture because I thought someone was pulling the scalp over it, but someone told me they weren’t, but it sure looked like they were. I think they were, so I was not mystified by saying it doesn’t look like what I saw. The wounds that I saw when that flap is not coveting them were just the kind of same wounds that I had seen in Trauma Room One. That picture where they are pulling the flap up was the only one out of several photos, which didn’t jive with what I saw.

    Q. Do you think they didn’t want people to see the wound in the back of the head?

    A. No. I think whenever you make a series of autopsy photos, if they were trying to do that they wouldn’t have shown any of the open wounds that weren’t covered with the flap and it was apparent that he had a big hole in the back of his skull on the right side. I don’t think they were trying to cover it up or they wouldn’t have shown those other photos.

    Q. You have been quoted as saying that you have seen the president’s autopsy photos that show a great defect in the back of his head?

    A. Yes. I’ve seen them, and that’s what I saw.

    • ed connor says:

      Happy St. Patrick’s Day, Professor McAdams. Is McAdams Irish? It is certainly Celtic.
      I host a Bushmill’s to you and sing:
      “No, ney, never
      No ney never no more;
      Will I blame the wild Oswald
      Ney never, no more.”

      • The name is Scots, but I have no idea if my ancestors were Scotch-Irish.

      • Ed, A Bushmill’s when you could lift a Guinness?

        ‘Go into a pub in Ireland and ask for Mother’s Milk, the Good Stuff or simply a pint of Arthur, and any bartender worth his salt should know immediately that you want a pint of Guinness.’

        ‘Northern Ireland’ is a new construct to define boundaries, somewhat similar to Churchhills efforts in the “middle east” . The North was and is the historic Province of Ulster although the 1922 boundaries were not drawn in fidelity.

        It’s not only a pity, but a revelation that John McAdams does not understand his family history and yet he seems to have exploited his “Catholicism” for personal advancement. Maybe as a historian he will revisit Irish monasticism vs. the Roman rule and the Dal Riata Scoti people who moved from the northern part of the island of Hibernia, bringing with them their name “Scoti” to what is now known as Scotland.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      You feeling okay, John? You just quoted McClelland as saying JFK had a big hole in the back of his head.

      • And when he said “back of the head,” he meant that it was as the autopsy photos show it.

        I think you are wanting “back of the head” to be in occipital bone.

        But McClelland didn’t see it that way.

        • Jason L. says:

          Again, you are really splitting hairs here. It is pretty clear that the back right quadrant of the skull behind the ear was basically blown out. And the testimony you posted supports this. It’s hard to see how a bullet fired from up and behind could cause a wound like that, especially without blowing out parts of the forehead and eye socket, which you don’t see.

          • It is pretty clear that the back right quadrant of the skull behind the ear was basically blown out.

            That’s not what the photos and x-rays show.

            Are you arguing they are faked?

          • Jason L. says:

            There is one post-mortem photo, which I have pointed out to you before, which shows JFK lying on his back and the right side of the head behind the ear is largely missing, both skull and brain. You will claim that this is an occipital wound, but it certainly appears that, while the wound may start toward the back of the occipital area, the rearward parts of the skull are affected also, quite severely.

            Regarding the x-rays, it seems at least possible that the scalp flap was held over that particular wound during the x-rays, as well as many of the photographs. You certainly see that the bones posterior to the right occipital region are severely fractured in the x-rays. To me, this is a much simpler explanation than x-ray fakery.

          • which shows JFK lying on his back and the right side of the head behind the ear is largely missing, both skull and brain

            That’s correct. And that’s parietal bone.

            but it certainly appears that, while the wound may start toward the back of the occipital area, the rearward parts of the skull are affected also, quite severely.

            I’m not following you.

            The wound clearly extends to posterior parietal bone, but that photo doesn’t show it extending into occipital bone. In fact, you can’t see occipital bone in that photo.

            The AP x-ray shows the entry defect in the cowlick area, and shows nasty fractures radiating from it, including fractures in occipital bone. It doesn’t show occipital bone blown out.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/

      • Bart Kamp says:

        The autopsy pix faked, geeh let me see…..
        http://memberfiles.freewebs.com/42/69/122976942/photos/Autopsy/a3.jpg

        What on earth is that crappy mask job on the back of JFK’s head for then? No wonder they called in Ida Dox……..

        • ed connor says:

          Someone recently posted a link on this site, indicating that the occipital wound, not apparent in the “official” autopsy photos, appears when the same rear view photo is exposed in a different degree of light.
          I cannot recall who posted this; maybe someone else does?

    • Arnaldo M Fernandez says:

      Oh, Dr. McAdams, the real point is “he had a big hole in the back of his skull on the right side (…)and that’s what I saw[:] a great defect in the back of his head.”

    • “Q. You have been quoted as saying that you have seen the president’s autopsy photos that show a great defect in the back of his head?

      A. Yes. I’ve seen them, and that’s what I saw.”~McClelland

      This is from your very own post “professor” McAdams

      So why is it that you keep insisting that McClelland saw the only photo that is publicly available, when he states clearly that there were other photo’s that show the wound to the rear of the head that he saw?
      He later says that there were at least 50 photos clearly showing the gaping wound in the occipital-parietal.

      You are cherry-picking what McClelland has said in an effort to impeach him as a qualified witness.

      Before Perry did further exploratory surgery to the throat wound, it is likely that the bullet hole was still obvious to those who arrived after the simple tracheotomy was installed.
      \\][//

  4. kennedy63 says:

    JM once again you reveal your motive as a dissembler. This is Dr. McClelland’s response: “Well, that’s not quite true. I was standing at the back of the head; I was standing about 18 inches above the back of his head, so I was looking directly down into a wound in the back of his head that was probably five or six inches in diameter. It included most of the right part of the back of his head and a little bit of the back part of the top of his head.” Let this stand as his view, not yours!

  5. Gary Aguilar says:

    .John,

    The extant autopsy photos show that Kennedy’s skull wounds were distinctly different than the Parkland doctors described them, right? Since those autopsy photos must be accurate, they prove the total and complete incompetence of the Parkland professor-trauma surgeons, don’t you think?

    We’ll come back to Dr. McClelland in a moment. But for now, here’s what the incompetent professor-trauma surgeons said on the day of the assassination, minutes after witnessing the wounds, and as published by the Warren Commission:

    Warren Report: (p. 517 ff – http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0271a.htm)

    P. 518: Kemp Clark, MD: “There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region … There was considerable loss of scakp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebrellar tissue was extruding from the wound.” Undated, typed noted.

    p. 520: “The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and brain tissue prseent with diffuse oozing … attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted.” – 11.22.63, 16:20, Charles J. Carrico, MD

    p. 521: “A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted … . ” Malcolm. O. Perry, MD, 16:30, 11.22.63.

    p. 523: ” … the temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.” Charles Baxter, MD, Assistant Prof of Surgery, 11.22.63.

    p. 524-525: In a hand-written hospital note: “a large 3 x3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present….there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also….There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region …. Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination….” 11.22.63, 16:15 hrs. Kemp Clark, MD

    P. 529 – 30: “There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.” M. T. Jenkins, MD, 11.22.63, 16:30.

    Next, we’ll return to Dr. McClelland.

    Gary

  6. Gary Aguilar says:

    Dr. McClelland described Kennedy’s skull injuries as innacurately as Parkland professors described them on the day of the assassination, including neurosurgery professor Parkland, Kemp Clark, MD: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0020b.htm

    ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, “…I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered…so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out….” (WC–V6:33) Later he said, “…unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy’s life) were of no avail.” (Emphasis added throughout) (WC–V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, “…massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss.” (WC–V6:34)

    And McClelland wasn’t alone among those who testified to the Warren Commission. Virtually all of them described JFK’s wounds similarly.

    So it’s clear: University of Texas physician professors and resident physicians knew next to no anatomy in 1963. They (obviously) ouldn’t tell the back of the human skull from the front.

    Let’s hope they’ve gotten better!

    Gary

    • You just ignored what I posted.

      McClelland said that, when he saw the entire set of autopsy photos, they matched what he remember from the Parkland ER.

      We know what they show: a large defect in right posterior parietal bone.

      To repeat:

      A. No. I think whenever you make a series of autopsy photos, if they were trying to do that they wouldn’t have shown any of the open wounds that weren’t covered with the flap and it was apparent that he had a big hole in the back of his skull on the right side.

      So the “hole in the back of his skull on the right hand side” was as shown in the autopsy photos.

      So any interpretation of McClelland’s testimony as being at odds with the photos and x-rays is mistaken.

      • Gary Aguilar says:

        .John,

        You write: “So the “hole in the back of his skull on the right hand side” was as shown in the autopsy photos.”

        You’re playin’ word games, right? Or yer just kiddin’?

        If you’re not, please show us an autopsy photo that shows McClelland’s “hole in the back of JFK’s skull on the right hand side.” For since you seem to be endorsing McClelland that such a photo exits, let’s see it, professor!

        Second, you don’t actually think there was a hole in the back of JFK’s skull, right?

        You think all these Parkland docs were yahoos, for saying things the photos disprove, like:

        Warren Report: (p. 517 ff – http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0271a.htm)

        P. 518: Kemp Clark, MD: “There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region … There was considerable loss of scakp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebrellar tissue was extruding from the wound.” Undated, typed noted.

        p. 520: “The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and brain tissue prseent with diffuse oozing … attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted.” – 11.22.63, 16:20, Charles J. Carrico, MD

        p. 521: “A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted … . ” Malcolm. O. Perry, MD, 16:30, 11.22.63.

        p. 523: ” … the temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.” Charles Baxter, MD, Assistant Prof of Surgery, 11.22.63.

        p. 524-525: In a hand-written hospital note: “a large 3 x3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present….there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also….There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region …. Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination….” 11.22.63, 16:15 hrs. Kemp Clark, MD

        P. 529 – 30: “There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.” M. T. Jenkins, MD, 11.22.63, 16:30.

        Admit it, .John: you’re convinced JFK’s skull wound was anterolateral, involving the right anterior parietal and frontal bones, and a portion of the anterior temporal bone. That’s not what McClelland, Clark, Carrico, etc. said, is it?

        So you’re going with, ‘Well, they sort of said the photos are sort of consistent, and so that settles it.’ And in order to do that, you’ve got to torture McClelland’s words to fit.

        Just admit it, .John, the photos are Gospel Truth, Parkland docs didn’t know enough anatomy to know that what they said was “occipital” was actually “anterolateral.”

        Gary

        • Admit it, .John: you’re convinced JFK’s skull wound was anterolateral, involving the right anterior parietal and frontal bones,

          No, it was parietal, involving right parietal bone from the cowlick area to the coronal suture.

          That’s what the HSCA FPP said, and they had access to all the materials.

          Just admit it, .John, the photos are Gospel Truth,

          So you think the photos and x-rays are faked?

          Do you believe that?

          Give me an honest answer!

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            Since the Political Science professor says JFK’s skull defect was “parietal,” that means that the Parkland professors were all wrong, n’est pas?

            So admit it: Parkland docs were so stoopid they didn’t know human anatomy as well as a certain asst professor of Poly Sci at Marquette, right?

            So let’s consider Boswell’s face sheet diagram, which includes the notation “17-cm missing,” with arrows pointing fore and aft.

            Measure 17-cm back from the edge of the defect in JFK’s frontal bone and where do you suppose that defect extends to, .John, even in Wisconsin skulls? If it doesn’t extend to occipital bone, you’re measuring a non-human skull.

            So, what, then? Not being a an assistant professor of Poly Sci, Boswell didn’t know how to use a ruler? ; ~ >

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            .John sez:

            “it (JFK’s skull defect) was parietal, involving right parietal bone from the cowlick area to the coronal suture.”

            That means the Parkland docs were all goofy, right? Admit it, .John, you’re right and the Parkland docs were quacks.

            Warren Report: (p. 517 ff – http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0271a.htm)

            P. 518: Kemp Clark, MD: “There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region … There was considerable loss of scakp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebrellar tissue was extruding from the wound.” Undated, typed noted.

            p. 520: “The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and brain tissue prseent with diffuse oozing … attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted.” – 11.22.63, 16:20, Charles J. Carrico, MD

            p. 521: “A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted … . ” Malcolm. O. Perry, MD, 16:30, 11.22.63.

            p. 523: ” … the temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.” Charles Baxter, MD, Assistant Prof of Surgery, 11.22.63.

            p. 524-525: In a hand-written hospital note: “a large 3 x3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present….there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also….There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region …. Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination….” 11.22.63, 16:15 hrs. Kemp Clark, MD

            P. 529 – 30: “There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.” M. T. Jenkins, MD, 11.22.63, 16:30.

          • That means the Parkland docs were all goofy, right? Admit it, .John, you’re right and the Parkland docs were quacks.

            Do you or do you not believe the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked?

            If you are honest, you will give an honest reply.

          • ed connor says:

            I don’t know where Dr. Photon had gone, but even he will tell you that the cerebellum is a small section of the brain lying at the junction of the brain stem and the spinal cord. A wound from the cowlick to the parietal region could not possibly expose the cerebellum.
            A wound exposing cerebellar tissue must, sine qua non, involve the occiput.

          • A wound from the cowlick to the parietal region could not possibly expose the cerebellum. A wound exposing cerebellar tissue must, sine qua non, involve the occiput.

            Correct. But the autopsy photos and x-rays show that the cerebellum was intact.

            I don’t doubt the doctors saw tissue they thought was cerebellum. But they were mistaken.

            That is unless you think the autopsy photos are faked or forged.

            But anybody thinking that needs to read the HSCA authentication:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            John, they were/are accredited experienced Doctors, you are not. They were there, you were not. Regarding the presence of cerebellum, I believe them not you.

          • John, they were/are accredited experienced Doctors, you are not. They were there, you were not. Regarding the presence of cerebellum, I believe them not you.

            So you believe the autopsy photos and x-rays were faked, right?

            Give me an honest answer. Gary won’t.

          • John, they were/are accredited experienced Doctors, you are not. They were there, you were not. Regarding the presence of cerebellum, I believe them not you.

            Then you believe the photos and x-rays are fake, right?

            They show the cerebellum intact.

            Why won’t you folks step up to the plate and claim that?

        • Just admit it, .John, the photos are Gospel Truth, Parkland docs didn’t know enough anatomy to know that what they said was “occipital” was actually “anterolateral.”

          Where do you get anterolateral?

          The autopsy photos and x-rays show the wound in parietal bone.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            .John asks, for the umpteenth time: “Do you or do you not believe the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked?”

            Here’s the answer I’ve repeatedly given: “I DON’T KNOW.” But that’s not the answer .John wants, so you can bet he’ll ask it again, and again and again. And he’ll forget, again and again and again, my answer.

            .John asks, “Where do you get anterolateral?”

            From you, .John: you said JFK’s skull wound “was parietal, involving right parietal bone from the cowlick area to the coronal suture.” And you also embrace the autopsy photos and X-rays that show some bone loss into the frontal bone and a scalp defect that extends IN FRONT OF THE HAIRLINE onto the forehead, here: https://www.google.com/search?q=JFK%27s+skull+wound+and+frontal+bone&rlz=1C1AVNE_enUS661US661&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiS4YKc_8rLAhVH02MKHXkoAMYQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=wvZv1EuQSX-uzM%3A

            So your view is that the Parkland docs who overwhelmingly described a rearward defect were goofy and you’re right, it was anterolateral, involving the right parietal bone, but NOT occipital, and the rear portion of the right frontal bone, well in front of the ear, and with an injury that extended onto JFK’s right forehead.

            Wouldn’t such a wound, your wound, be fairly described by political scientists as “anterolateral,” assistant professor?

            So come clean, asst. professor: the Parkland docs were all goofy, right, using the term “occipital,” etc.? Admit it, .John, you’re right and the Parkland docs were quacks.

            The failure of the century at Parkland Hospital was that they didn’t have a Poly Sci asst professor on hand when JFK came in to help them understand the President’s injuries.

          • Here’s the answer I’ve repeatedly given: “I DON’T KNOW.” But that’s not the answer .John wants, so you can bet he’ll ask it again, and again and again. And he’ll forget, again and again and again, my answer.

            But you claim the doctors’ testimony you keep citing conflicts with the photos and x-rays.

            Either that testimony conflicts with the photos and x-rays, or it does not.

            If you don’t think it conflicts, you should accept what the photos and x-rays show.

            If you do think it conflicts, you need to honestly say whether you believe the doctors, or the photos and x-rays.

            Your evasion implies you want it both ways.

          • From you, .John: you said JFK’s skull wound “was parietal, involving right parietal bone from the cowlick area to the coronal suture.” And you also embrace the autopsy photos and X-rays that show some bone loss into the frontal bone and a scalp defect that extends IN FRONT OF THE HAIRLINE onto the forehead, here:

            Your link shows it not extending anterior to the hairline.

            http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5oAg5w/s1600/00h.%2BJFK%2BAutopsy%2BPhoto.JPG

            Most of the “great defect” was posterior.

            The fact that you try to make it anterior shows you setting up a straw man. Apparently because you need one to make your argument.

          • The failure of the century at Parkland Hospital was that they didn’t have a Poly Sci asst professor on hand when JFK came in to help them understand the President’s injuries.

            I don’t think anybody would ask an ophthalmologist for an assessment of the wounds.

            They would go with a forensic pathologist.

            But all the forensic pathologists disagree with you.

          • “Where do you get anterolateral?
            The autopsy photos and x-rays show the wound in parietal bone.”~McAdams

            Mr Aguilar gets anterolateral from an X-ray that you have posted on your very own website, because I see a reference to it there on one of the images of that X-ray.

            I have that X-ray shown in a set with the photo of JFK’s head wound that your just gave a link to, in the body of the main article at this link:
            https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/

            in the section titled: Parkland Doctors

            You will see that this X-ray in fact shows the missing bone in the frontal Parietal-temporal (the forehead and temple) of the skull. The bones of the occipital are cracked into shards that are still in place in this X-ray.

            I know you have seen this X-ray doctor. What do you make of it, compared to the color photo of JFK you just offered?
            \\][//

          • And tell us McAdams, just what does ophthalmology have to do with political science?

            Do you have physical problems with your eyes?
            That may explain a lot of what goes on here.

            But it has nothing to do with political science generally.
            \\][//

          • Here is a gif of that X-ray along with an X-ray of the front view:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/reading/orient.gif

            Again, as shown on your own website doctor.
            \\][//

          • Mr Aguilar gets anterolateral from an X-ray that you have posted on your very own website, because I see a reference to it there on one of the images of that X-ray.

            Does he not understand that the image that people are looking at his been digitally processed, with vastly increased contrast?

            So that bone that appears missing in the temporal area is in fact there, but since it is thinner, he has dropped out with the digital processing.

            The HSCA published the unenhanced x-ray:

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=120

            And also a digitally enhanced one:

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=121

            (poor quality reproduction. Blowing the images up a bit helps.)

          • “So that bone that appears missing in the temporal area is in fact there, but since it is thinner, he has dropped out with the digital processing.”~McAdams

            Horsesnot “professor”,

            The X-ray clearly shows the missing parietal and sphenoid/temporal bone just behind the fragment of petrous bone.
            \\][//

          • “Does he not understand that the image that people are looking at his been digitally processed, with vastly increased contrast?”
            ~McAdams

            Regardless of your spurious “interpretation” of what is seen in this X-ray:

            Do you “professor”, not understand the obvious conundrum this X-ray presents when we take into account the testimonies of the Parkland AND the Bethesda doctors who described a large avulsive wound in the right occipital-parietal of JFK’s head?
            \\][//

          • Gary L. Aguilar says:

            .John says that the photo I linked to does not show the wound extending anterior to Kennedy’s hairline.

            He wrote:

            “Your link shows it not extending anterior to the hairline.

            http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5oAg5w/s1600/00h.%2BJFK%2BAutopsy%2BPhoto.JPG

            Most of the “great defect” was posterior.”

            .John: have you seen your opthalmologist lately. The photo most assuredly DOES show a wound extending onto the forehead.

            Are you again asking us to look at the king and agree that he’s wearing clothes?

            G

          • And again I must ask:
            Do you “professor”, not understand the obvious conundrum this X-ray presents when we take into account the testimonies of the Parkland AND the Bethesda doctors who described a large avulsive wound in the right occipital-parietal of JFK’s head?

            Do you see the rear of the skull in this X-ray McAdams? The occipital-parietal bones are cracked and shattered, but they are in place.
            Where is that a large avulsive wound in the right occipital-parietal of JFK’s head that the Parkland doctors saw?
            . . .

            “Where are those gold doubloons and pieces of eight handed down from Applegate?”

            Were you never a teenage sleuth McAdams? You seem to miss out on so very much.
            \\][//

          • Do you “professor”, not understand the obvious conundrum this X-ray presents when we take into account the testimonies of the Parkland AND the Bethesda doctors who described a large avulsive wound in the right occipital-parietal of JFK’s head?

            You tell me what you think it means.

            I think (1.) you don’t know how to interpret the digitally enhanced x-rays that the HSCA published, and (2.) you are misinterpreting the doctors’ testimony.

          • .John: have you seen your opthalmologist lately. The photo most assuredly DOES show a wound extending onto the forehead.

            Are you hoping people won’t actually look at the photo?

            Do you think this photo is faked, or not?

            You think it conflicts with the doctors’ testimony.

            Do you think that means it’s faked?

            Or are you misinterpreting the doctors’ testimony?

          • The X-ray clearly shows the missing parietal and sphenoid/temporal bone just behind the fragment of petrous bone.

            You weren’t even aware that the x-ray that people are looking at was digitally enhanced, were you?

            And now that I point it out, you don’t want to accept that since it’s convenient for you to believe it conflicts with other evidence.

            Do you think the x-ray is faked?

            Do you think the photos are faked?

          • For the third time McAdams:

            Do you see the rear of the skull in this X-ray McAdams? The occipital-parietal bones are cracked and shattered, but they are in place.
            Where is that a large avulsive wound in the right occipital-parietal of JFK’s head that the Parkland doctors saw?

            I am not speaking to the front portion of the image in this X-ray “professor” – Where is the large avulsive wound in the X-ray???

            And why are you so desperately avoiding answering this question?
            \\][//

          • Do you see the rear of the skull in this X-ray McAdams? The occipital-parietal bones are cracked and shattered, but they are in place.

            Correct. There is no occipital blow out.

            Where is that a large avulsive wound in the right occipital-parietal of JFK’s head that the Parkland doctors saw?

            On the top of the head, mostly to the right of the center line, extending from the cowlick area to the coronal suture.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            John says that the photo I linked to does not show the wound extending anterior to Kennedy’s hairline.

            He wrote:

            “Your link shows it not extending anterior to the hairline.

            http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5oAg5w/s1600/00h.%2BJFK%2BAutopsy%2BPhoto.JPG

            Most of the “great defect” was posterior.”

            .John: have you seen your opthalmologist lately? The photo most assuredly DOES show a wound extending onto the forehead.

            Are you again asking us to look at the king and agree that he’s wearing clothes?

            Here are two autopsy photos and BOTH a scalp wound extending onto the right forehead:

            https://www.google.com/search?q=jfk+autopsy+photos&rlz=1C1AVNE_enUS661US661&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjVkoKsi9PLAhUDzWMKHX-MABkQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=0xU30lyWvcsEmM%3A

            Here’s one with a circle around the forehead wound: https://www.google.com/search?q=jfk+autopsy+photos&rlz=1C1AVNE_enUS661US661&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjVkoKsi9PLAhUDzWMKHX-MABkQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=YlEA2WnxI5Mp6M%3A

            Here’s another view from a different angle:

            https://www.google.com/search?q=jfk+autopsy+photos&rlz=1C1AVNE_enUS661US661&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjVkoKsi9PLAhUDzWMKHX-MABkQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=hzX2oF5poauPVM%3A

            If you can’t see that the scalp wound extends onto the forehead, ask a high school student to look at the images and point that forehead wound out to you. ; ~ >

            Or are you hoping no one will click the links and look at the images?

            G

  7. Greg says:

    Funny I don’t see the word “match” anywhere. I guess you just make stuff up when it doesn’t fit in with what you think. Like Jeff Morley said Dr McClelland is an unimpeachable witness. You can try to twist things around anyway you want but the truth is the truth. Dr. McClellan speaks the truth….

    • Funny I don’t see the word “match” anywhere.

      McClelland said:

      Q. You have been quoted as saying that you have seen the president’s autopsy photos that show a great defect in the back of his head?

      A. Yes. I’ve seen them, and that’s what I saw.

      So the autopsy photos show “a great defect in the back of his head.”

      Which is quite true. Except it’s not in occipital bone, where you folks want it to be.

      You can try to twist things around anyway you want but the truth is the truth.

      You buffs have been twisting his testimony. When he said “back of the head,” he did not mean occipital bone.

      He meant the wound we see in the autopsy photos.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        John

        Now I know you’re losing it.

        “So the autopsy photos show “a great defect in the back of his head.”

        Which is quite true. Except it’s not in occipital bone, where you folks want it to be.”

        The “Back of Head” autopsy photo shows no defect whatsoever behind the right ear, or below the cowlick. Just how can there then be a defect in the back of JFK’s head?

        • Greg Arious says:

          Your “back of the head” hole could only mean JFK was shot from the Triple Underpass, NOT from the side, AKA “grassy knoll”.

          Geometry is not open to opinion.

          • “Your “back of the head” hole could only mean JFK was shot from the Triple Underpass, NOT from the side, AKA “grassy knoll”.~Greg Arious

            I agree with you here Greg. If there was a shot from the Grassy Knoll, it missed. I think that more likely that someone threw a large firecracker over the fence there, an M80, or a cherry bomb.

            The head shot came from the southeast corner of Dealey Plaza just forward of the triple underpass. It is likely that the shot to JFK’s throat came from the same sniper.
            \\][//

        • Because everything behind the ear is “posterior.”

          You can huff and puff all you want about what “back of the head” means, but for McClelland, it meant something consistent with the autopsy photos.

        • The “Back of Head” autopsy photo shows no defect whatsoever behind the right ear, or below the cowlick.

          Look at the entire set, and the x-rays. Most of the wound was behind the ear.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            “Look at the entire set, and the x-rays. Most of the wound was behind the ear.”

            No way. The Back of Head autopsy shows no damage whatsoever behind the right ear. If even one photo shows this, it is evidence of a cover up. Capiche?

          • No way. The Back of Head autopsy shows no damage whatsoever behind the right ear. If even one photo shows this, it is evidence of a cover up. Capiche?

            A hand is holding the scalp up to show the entry defect. That’s why you can’t see the large defect.

            Read what McClelland said. He don’t think there was any cover up. He looked at the entire set to see the nature of the wound.

          • “Look at the entire set, and the x-rays. Most of the wound was behind the ear.”~McAdams

            Not in these X-rays “professor” the occipital-parietal bones are shattered, but they are still in place in these examples:

            https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/#comment-12606

            \\][//

      • Gary Aguilar says:

        .John “says”:

        “… he (McClelland) did not mean occipital bone.”

        He didn’t?!

        Why then did he testify: ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, “…I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered…so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone (LOYALIST ALERT: THERE’S THE DAMNED WORD “OCCIPITAL,” FER CHRISSAKES!) being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out….” (WC–V6:33) Later he said, “…unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy’s life) were of no avail.” (Emphasis added throughout) (WC–V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, “…massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss.” (WC–V6:34)

        http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

        Nice try, .John!

        Gary

        • the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone (LOYALIST ALERT: THERE’S THE DAMNED WORD “OCCIPITAL,” FER CHRISSAKES!) being fractured in its lateral half,

          So it was parietal bone, with some occipital involvement?

          That doesn’t get you what you need.

          You are also ignoring the part of McClelland’s testimony where he makes it clear he could not have seen a blow out in occipital bone. Kennedy was face up, with his EOP on the gurney.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            John

            The back of the head is not flat. It curves forward to each side from a centre line in the middle of the back of the skull.

            If a person is lying flat on his back, only the centre of the back of his skull is in contact with the surface he is lying on. A large gaping wound in the right rear of the skull will be more than visible, as the skull bone will curve upward, in the supine position, towards the ear.

          • A large gaping wound in the right rear of the skull will be more than visible, as the skull bone will curve upward, in the supine position, towards the ear.

            Not if brain matter obscures the wound, as the doctors said was the case.

            And you still have to contend with the fact that McClelland said the wound that he remembers was the wound he saw in the autopsy photos.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Game, set and match, Dr. Aguilar, although I am sure Prof. McAdams will attempt some bizarre form of rebuttal to counter your argument.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            You’re suggesting the Good Asst. Professor will attempt something bizarre?! Not remotely possible.

            After all, he teaches at a Catholic school, and they don’t allow that sort of thing.

      • Greg says:

        He said The cerebellum was uzzing out of the back of his head. Wake up John the Word “match” is not there. How do you have any idea what he “meant”, can you read his mind? Cerebellum look it up John

        • It doesn’t matter whether the word “match” is there. He said the photos show the “back of the head” wound that he saw.

          The cerebellum issue is different.

          Do you believe the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked, forged or tampered with?

          Funny none of the buffs here will claim that. But if they are not, they are the best evidence.

          They show the cerebellum intact.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            John, I met Dr. McClelland once briefly. He was courteous and willingly answered a couple of questions. He Is a Doctor experienced in wounds who in 64 had no agenda, as you do now. He said then there was missing cerebellum. I still believe him.
            Like Jeff once said in another thread, he’s an unimpeachable witness.

          • Greg says:

            It does matter if the word match is there John because you said he says it does match. Quit twisting things John all you do is twist things that’s all you do you are worthless to this discussion. Uninpeachable. You have zero credibility because you twist everything. Soon it will be proven that the back of his head was blackened in….in the Zapruder film and you can just flush everything you say down the toilet. Mark my words.

          • He Is a Doctor experienced in wounds who in 64 had no agenda, as you do now. He said then there was missing cerebellum. I still believe him.

            So you believe the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked or forged.

            Step up and admit you believe that!

          • “Soon it will be proven that the back of his head was blackened in….in the Zapruder film and you can just flush everything you say down the toilet. Mark my words.”~Greg

            I have had those words marked for some 5 to 6 years now “soon” seems to be quite indefinite for those who have been duped by Doug Horne and James Fetzer into buying into the Z-film alteration flim flam.

            https://youtu.be/Hz64hWng2vM?t=6
            \\][//

          • Greg says:

            Right Willy so this has been said before and I have said it before but I am patiently waiting still for these Scans to be released. You still have not answered my question. Maybe you and I should split the cost and buy our own set of the internegatives. You game?

          • As far as I am concerned Greg,

            You ‘alterationists’ twist things as badly as McAdams and his minions; just in the other direction.

            Answer your question? Okay, NO, I am not about to waste money on a quest for BS. But I will advise you once again to learn something about film and special effects:

            https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
            \\][//

          • Greg says:

            Willy, thanks for answering my question. I Read the Roland Zavada article Again and bottom line I believe David Lifton and Doug Horne. Again I believe the film is authentic but altered. I hate to think I have been dropped into the ‘minion’ bucket of The professor simply because I believe the film is altered. I would still like to hear what you believe the ‘black blobs’ on the back of JFK’s head are? Shadows? I do not believe they are shadows. They move from frame to frame in different shapes and look way too black to be shadows. I am also patiently awaiting the arrival of those 4K scans.

          • “I would still like to hear what you believe the ‘black blobs’ on the back of JFK’s head are? Shadows?”~Greg

            I have already explained what the “black blobs” are on the thread: Top CIA photoanalyst talks about the Zapruder film.

            Those scans were made from 5th generation transparencies. The contrast buildup on such would be dramatic. You are not blowing up a real life image here Greg, you are blowing up grain and emulsion. The shadows get darker and the lights get lighter with each successive generation. By five generations out you literally have the lights and darks separated so far that there is little relationship to the original contrast, so that the solid black shapes have no correlation to the original image.

            It gets worse, the further you zoom in on it. Like blowing up the dot matrix of old funny papers in print. Blow it up large enough and all you see are colored dots.
            \\][//

          • greg says:

            But Willy, if the images are altered then they would already be on the 5th generation scans. so it does not matter what generation they are. I looked back to see your comments and you said “The back of JFK’s head is in shadow, no darker than any other shadow at that angle on any other subject”. This is exactly was has been analyzed and the images at the back of the head are the darkest shade of black possible. They are not shadows, maybe to the naked eye the other images look like the same darkness, but they are not. Willy, why do these ‘black blobs’ move around in manners unlike any shadow I have ever seen? like 337 or 340 or 335 z as great examples of images that are not shadows.

          • “if the images are altered then they would already be on the 5th generation scans.”~Greg

            “If” is the operative term here Greg. Which means that NOTHING is proven by blowing these images up. And yes the 5th generation quality does have bearing as I have described. You are doing nothing but increasing the size of what is already in the fifth generation transparency, which is has contrast blown beyond reason.

            Going over these points time and again shows me that you have no understanding of the nature of light and photography. Thus this conversation is futile.

            And we haven’t even approached the problems of special effects, and how these presumed “alterations” could have been achieved.

            You can continue to believe what you wish Greg, but they do not stand to technical scrutiny.

            If I may have your leave, please.
            \\][//

          • Greg says:

            Ok Willy, we can take this back up when the documentary is released, until then I shall honor your wishes.😊

  8. DB says:

    Another excellent video , especially for historical purposes

    The moderators really do a great job with this credible account by people that were there . Very important for history no matter what you believe .

    Between Dr M , Sibert and Oneal IMO we can say with near 100% certainty that JFK had a large approx 5 inch gaping hole in the back of the President head .

    IMO and I know others take the opposite view but LHO was clearly part of an assassination group ( whether he was a willing actor or not ) the big question is who else was involved ?

    My strong suspicion based on the evidence , areas that were unexplored , confessions etc. that this traced back to the ultra violent anti communist group in the CIA anti Castro group.

    At this point I feel pretty strongly from the evidence that David Morlaes , Ted Sforza , David Atlee Phillips , Howard Hunt ( not sure of the role but he admitted to some part ), Frank Sturgis , Eladio Del Valle , Tony Cuesto, Hermino Diaz Garcia , Jack Ruby , Richard Billings , George Joanaides, Tony Martino , Johnny Roselli, David Ferrie , Clay Shaw, Gary Bannister were the key players in the execution of the assassination and / or the initial propaganda to blame LHO immediately before and afterwards .

    Above that I really Can’t say , my best guess would be William Harvey and Ed Lansdale possibly were key plot designers . Jean Hill and FBI Agent Odem IMO were key players in the LHO arrest and coverup and likely IMO had at least some pre knowledge about the assassination. I don’t think the plan was known by much more than the above plus maybe 5-20 others ( admittingly just a guess ) but based on other CIA executive action events , the CIA were very disciplined about need to know and compartmentalization .

    My question is about Gary Underhill the Life reporter . Richard Billings is someone newer to my thinking based upon his role in CIA Cuba missions with Moralez , Sforza and their violent team / missions and his role with WC, Garrison investigation and the HSCA.

    Having both worked at Life , was Underhill close with Richard Billings ? Has there been any newer information connecting the two ? I just don’t see how Morales wasn’t involved , he admitted as such , and during that time period Billings worked closely with him on Cuba operations . I always wondered if Underhill was close with Billings and by extension had close contact with Moralez , Sforza and their other anti Cuba colleagues which lead to his post knowledge about the players involved .

    Anyway Dr M not only convinced me about the large gaping back of head wound , throat enterance wound but also that the brain from the autopsy was not JFK’s as too much mass was missing . From all the witnesses about being hit with brain matter , Doctor and other witness testimony and the Zapruder film itself showed clearly IMO a very severe head and brain wound . I’m not a big believer in the fake Zapruder film and all the claims about pre autopsy surgery etc. but this cover up brain is very troubling to me , very . I mean if they switched the brain , it disgusts me on what else they did and Dr M was very clear about how much brain mass was missing.

    Thanks in advance .

  9. Greg Arious says:

    You have one of history’s biggest enigmas in Oswald, and you stoop to this.

    Nobody benefits from this type of stuff.

    • “You have one of history’s biggest enigmas in Oswald, and you stoop to this.”~Greg the vague

      Perhaps you could indicate who the “You” is that you are addressing your complaint to, And also give some indication as to what it is that whomever you are addressing is stooping to.

      Your comment on geometry is equally as vague.
      \\][//

  10. Perhaps there is some “failure to communicate” going on here my cool-hand partners in this debate,

    The large wound to the rear of Kennedy’s head as described by most of the Parkland doctors was “Occipital-Parietal”. Some seem to confuse this with the Occipital Protrusion, which is a specific location on the occipital bone; the lower ridge at the very base of the curvature of the skull.

    The gaping wound was higher than this; at about the level of the upper ear and extending from the right temporal entrance wound in a deep tangential trench along the parietal to the occipital. The skull bone of the entire right side was fractured up to the top mid-line. Most of the right brain had been blasted to “mush” by the supersonic pressure wave as the bullet literally exploded the brain within the cranium.

    The brain and blood blew out of the fractured skull rather like spraying through a grill made of shattered bone. Parts of bone and brain were blown in all directions, much of it upward (as seen in the Z-film).

    Much of the remaining skull bone was held together by a mesh of scalp and hair, “glued” together with dried blood.
    \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Tangential wounds make a horrible mess of the surface they travel through but, a bullet travelling a shallow path from temporal to occipital bone is not going to penetrate deeply enough into the skull bone to blast brains out. That only occurs when a bullet penetrates the skull and creates enough hydraulic pressure within the vessel of the skull to cause a blowout.

  11. Pat Speer says:

    Geeez, McClelland is not what people want him to be, okay? He initially said the wound was of the left temple. He later fell in line with the others and said it was on the back of the head. He refused to say this suggested a shot from the front, however, until he saw the Z film. He now says the photos show what he remembers, except that he remembers the wound stretching onto the back of the head. He assumes then that the back of the head photo was taken with the scalp pulled up to cover the hole. So, no, he is not a photo alterationist. And, no, he does not believe (nor, apparently, has he ever believed) that the wound was a blow-out wound on the back of the head, and proof the shot came from the front. He claims, after all, that the top of the head photos, in which a wound at the top of the head is made obvious, accurately reflect his memory of the wound. In short, you can’t pigeon-hole him. So please stop trying.

  12. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Pat

    Please show us where there is definite proof that Dr. McClelland was actually viewing the autopsy photos depicting a large wound at the top of JFK’s head, when he claimed these photos to be an accurate description of the head wound he recalled seeing.

    Please print a quote from Dr. McClelland where he does not describe the large gaping head wound on JFK as involving occipital bone and cerebellar brain tissue.

    • Please show us where there is definite proof that Dr. McClelland was actually viewing the autopsy photos depicting a large wound at the top of JFK’s head, when he claimed these photos to be an accurate description of the head wound he recalled seeing.

      Oh, my!

      You are positing a fake set of autopsy photos that were shown to McClelland.

      That’s the way it works: you start denying evidence, and the conspiracy has to get wider and wider involving more and more faked evidence.

      • Gary Aguilar says:

        Oh, my, indeed!

        Bob was just asking you to show us definite proof of what you’d claimed, “that Dr. McClelland was actually viewing the autopsy photos depicting a large wound at the top of JFK’s head, when he claimed these photos to be an accurate description of the head wound he recalled seeing.”

        Is that too hard a question for a Koch-funded Heartland Institute “expert” like you to answer without leaping to all sorts of wacky speculations? https://www.heartland.org/john-mcadams

        Just asking.

        • Bob was just asking you to show us definite proof of what you’d claimed, “that Dr. McClelland was actually viewing the autopsy photos depicting a large wound at the top of JFK’s head,

          Either he was looking that those pictures, or he was looking at some faked set.

          He said:

          A. Yes. I’ve seen them, and that’s what I saw.

          Now, are you going to try to slither out of this and imply that he saw some fake set, without actually saying it?

          Is that too hard a question for a Koch-funded Heartland Institute “expert” like you to answer without leaping to all sorts of wacky speculations?

          Just like a left-winger like you to bring in the Koch brothers.

          I have no idea whether they even care about the JFK assassination. But I do know your buddies at MSNBC don’t believe there was a conspiracy.

          Tough for you. 🙂

          • Gary L. Aguilar says:

            .John writes,”I have no idea whether they even care about the JFK assassination.”

            Of course you don’t! Might it affect what the Koch brothers pay you as an “expert” if you admitted you did? https://www.heartland.org/john-mcadams

            “Fred Koch then helped spearhead a national advertisement in the New York Times blaming Kennedy’s assassination on the communists – See more at: http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/07/187769/his-dad-charles-koch-was-bircher-new-documents#sthash.amKm2B28.dpuf

          • Of course you don’t! Might it affect what the Koch brothers pay you as an “expert” if you admitted you did?

            They don’t pay me anything.

            Does George Soros pay you?

            “Fred Koch then helped spearhead a national advertisement in the New York Times blaming Kennedy’s assassination on the communists

            Fifty years ago?

            Even your buddies at MSNBC don’t believe it was a conspiracy.

            And now you are accusing the Koch brothers of pushing a lone assassin view, rather than a “communists did it” view?

            You see conspiracies everywhere.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Oh Johnny Mac,

            Now it begins to make sense! No wonder you don’t wish to discuss Ford’s lying or the fact that Allen Dulles murdered innocent people so people like Fred Koch could make scads and scads of money, so that much later, his “benevolent” sons could pledge 900 million dollars in the 16 election so that “America can be equal to everyone.” Oh yes, America is rising again!

            So, good ol’ Fred was a member of the John Birch Society, eh? The same “conservative” group that printed and distributed the “Reasons why John Kennedy is a traitor” leaflets before JFK’s arrival to Dallas? That “conservative group?”

            I guess you would not be allowed to drink from the golden chalice that the Koch brothers hand to you if you were to question what really happened in Dallas. No wonder you dismiss Tom S. and his dogged pursuit to “follow the money.” I would imagine that if people continue to dig, we would find that the Koch family made a ton of dough by buying dirty politicians so that “policy” could somehow favor their interests. And, all this time, I thought your Catholic values would insist on truth, mercy, and love. You know, the values that a man named Jesus preached during his short time on this earth. I guess “dough” trumps all of that, huh?

            For the record, John, George Soros does not pay me a cent.

            For the record, again, I am going to pledge, today, 650 million for the 16 election so that, like the Koch brothers, I can make sure that America is equal for everyone!

            (I would pledge 900 million like the Koch brothers, but I just had to pay my taxes, and I am a little short for the next couple of months!)

            Ah, hypocrisy, the truly GREAT American value!

            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation

          • Now it begins to make sense! No wonder you don’t wish to discuss Ford’s lying or the fact that Allen Dulles murdered innocent people so people like Fred Koch could make scads and scads of money, so that much later, his “benevolent” sons could pledge 900 million dollars in the 16 election so that “America can be equal to everyone.” Oh yes, America is rising again!

            Thank you for making it clear that you view the JFK assassination entirely though the lens of your leftist politics.

            Do you object to the money George Soros puts into the American political system?

            http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/tom-steyer-campaign-donor-103617

            How about Bloomberg?

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us/bloomberg-plans-a-50-million-challenge-to-the-nra.html

            But, of course, this board is supposedly about the assassination, and not politics.

            But for you folks, it’s all about politics anyway. You start with whom you hate for political reasons, and then blame them for the assassination.

          • Tom S. says:

            Dr. McAdams, you’re a hoot. What has any “leftist” actually done to offend you in any meaningful way?
            I admit I pointed out to you that Nixon’s DOJ (in 1969) disagreed with your first person recollection of the absence of continuing segregation in the school district that employed you in 1968, (see- http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/agencies-hint-they-may-try-to-block-jfk-declassification-in-2017/#comment-839845 )
            ….but in fairness, maybe the specific school you were teaching in was comparatively a progressive model.

            “I’m sick and tired of hearing things…
            ……
            ….No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
            Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me….”

            http://www.metrolyrics.com/just-gimme-some-truth-lyrics-john-lennon.html

            http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html
            March 23, 2016
            Report: Nixon aide says war on drugs targeted blacks, hippies – CNNPolitics.com
            CNN International‎

            Customs Chief Guest Of Smuggling Suspect – Google News
            https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19721112&id=E0waAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rCgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7422,1343549&hl=en
            The Milwaukee Journal – Nov 12, 1972
            Richmond Harper, was arrested with eight other men on charges of conspiring to smuggle 10.000 weapons … Ambrose spent two nights last December on Harper’s ranch, on the Mexican side of thc border near Eagle Pass, … Myles Ambrose

            http://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-great-heroin-coup-chapter-seventeen.html
            ……….
            Myles Ambrose—the former Customs Commissioner, who was named head of the narcotics campaign’s domestic strike force. He would later leave government service in disgrace.

            On the afternoon of April 6, 1972 President Nixon arrived in Key Biscayne, Florida, to stay at his compound, next door to Bebe Rebozo’s residence and swimming pool. The following morning (see- http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3368 ) he “directed the establishment of a nationwide toll-free telephone number to be manned on a 24-hour basis, 7 days a week. The Hot line, a phase of the Drug Abuse Law Enforcement program, was designed to provide citizens a direct line to help the national effort to eliminate heroin trafficking through the contribution of information anonymously.” Nixon had chosen Ambrose less than four months earlier, announcing his appointment along with his new Executive Order 11641, (see- http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3552 ) which established ODALE….

            The Strength of the Pack: The Personalities, Politics and …
            https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22The+task+force+sting+had+nothing+to+do+with+myles+ambrose.+his+problem*%22
            Douglas Valentine – 2010 – ‎
            Chapter 19 – Myles to go…..
            Born in Laredo,Texas, he had worked for Customs since 1957 and (under Customs cover) forthe CIA since 1961.13The CIA had used Diosdado exclusively tospy on the … The Task Force sting had nothing to do with Myles Ambrose. His problem was his association with banker rancher Richmond Harper, a truly despicable man. …. Harper owned thousands of acres in Texas, and his brother Tito owned thousands more across the border in Mexico….

            http://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/03/style/nora-j-ambrose-wed-to-john-p-baker.html
            Nora J. Ambrose Wed to John P. Baker
            Published: January 3, 1982
            Nora Jeanne Ambrose, daughter of Myles J. Ambrose of Washington and the late Elaine Miller Ambrose, was married yesterday…
            ….Her father, a lawyer and member of the firm of O’Connor & Hannan in Washington, is a former Commissioner of Customs. Her mother was a special assistant to Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller…..

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/demohr_g.htm
            ……..
            Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT…. I gave up my office, and we set out from the ranch on the border of Mexico and the United States.
            Mr. JENNER. What ranch?
            Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. This was–that is the ranch which belongs to a friend of ours. …..

            Continued….

          • Tom S. says:

            -Continued from my last comment

            DeMohrenschildt. ….It is called the–it is Piedras Negras. It is on the Mexican side of the U.S. border. On the American side you have a little town called Eagle Pass. On the Mexican side you have Piedras Negras.
            There we have some very close friends who own a big ranch. Their name is Tito and Conchita Harper. They have–they are half Mexican, half Americans. They live on the ranch nearby, and in Piedras Negras By the way, when I was visiting them, at the time I was visiting them, a few months before, we heard about the death of my boy, right in their house. We were sitting in their house when there was the long distance call from Canada that my boy had died. They are very, very close friends. They also advised me that it would be a good thing for me to take a trip like that, knowing my interest in Mexico and my interest in the outdoor life.
            And that is what we did. We started off at the first 200 kilometers–Tito took us in a plane to cross the first range, a very difficult range, and the rest of the trip was made on foot, all the way to the Panama Canal.
            Mr. JENNER. All the way to where?
            Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. The Panama Canal. ….

            https://www.google.com/search?q=kessler%20harper%20site:news.google.com/newspapers&source=newspapers&gws_rd=ssl
            Star-News – Jul 3, 1972
            Nine Arrested In Arms Seizure At Shreveport . – Google News
            news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat…id…Google News
            The nine suspects arrested were identified as Murray Kessler of Brooklyn,. and Richmond Harper of Eagle Pass, and Antonio Maldonado and Juan Martinez, …
            ……
            Nine Accused Of Plot Against Cuba .Explosive Smuggling …
            news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat…id…Google News
            Federal officials said thai Mr Kessler was held Sunday in the federal prison annex in … Two Others Among those arrested were Richmond Harper, a prominent …

            https://www.google.com/search?q=richmond+harper+Herman+K.+Beebe&oq=richmond+harper+Herman+K.+Beebe&gs_l=serp.3…2675.4459.0.4794.8.8.0.0.0.0.268.588.6j0j1.7.0….0…1c.1.64.serp..1.1.266.sUUpVPvvLvQ
            Inside Job: The Looting of America’s Savings and Loans
            https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1504019911
            Stephen Pizzo, ‎Mary Fricker, ‎Paul Muolo – 2015 – ‎Political Science
            … K. Beebe. Murray Kessler: Reputed mob associate; associate of Richmond Harper. … Donald E. Luna: Associate of Herman K. Beebe and Carl Cardascia.
            Full text of “Inside job : the looting of America’s savings and …
            archive.org/stream/…/insidejoblooting00pizzrich_djvu.t…
            Internet Archive
            Ellis Blount: FBI special agent on the Herman K. Beebe case. … Richmond Harper: member of the 1970s Rent-a-Bank scandal in Texas and a Ben Barnes …

            Judge Edmund M. Reggie – Tulanelink
            http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/reggie_box.htm
            Apr 19, 2005 – During that period, his father, Edmund M. Reggie of Crowley, owned the bank with Shreveport businessman Herman K. Beebe. Prior to trial, a ….. Although the convention ultimately chose Kefauver, the favorable impression that Kennedy and the Louisiana delegates made on one another led to a lasting friendship between Reggie and the Kennedys [5]….

            Continued….

          • Tom S. says:

            -Continued from my last comment

            ….In 1960, Reggie directed John Kennedy’s presidential campaign in Louisiana and helped deliver its electoral votes to JFK despite strong opposition toward him in some areas of the state [8]. The previous year, Reggie had arranged for Kennedy and his wife, Jacqueline, to attend the International Rice Festival in Crowley as honored celebrities, where they were greeted by enthusiastic crowds. Following his election, President Kennedy sent Reggie on a 1961 diplomatic mission to the Middle East where in Lebanon he was given a hero’s welcome in his parents’ hometown of Ihden. Reggie continued to serve the president as liason with Louisiana Gov. Jimmie Davis from 1961 until JFK’s death in 1963 [5]….

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Reggie_Kennedy
            Victoria Anne Reggie “Vicki” Kennedy (born February 26, 1954)[1] is an American lawyer and the second wife and widow of longtime U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, who was 22 years her senior.
            Early life and education

            The second of six children, Victoria Anne Reggie was born in Crowley, Louisiana. Her father, Edmund Reggie, was a Louisiana judge and banker, and her mother, Doris Ann (née Boustany), was a Democratic national committeewoman.[2][3] Reggie is of Lebanese descent, as all of her grandparents were Maronites from Lebanon, who immigrated to the United States and later settled to Louisiana.[4] Reggie’s grandparents became important players in the local Roman Catholic church, and later their children became involved in business and politics.[4][5]

            Reggie’s immediate family was wealthy because of money from her maternal family’s interest in the Bunny Bread baking concern in New Orleans.[4][5] She was raised in a family that was constantly involved in politics and campaigns.[2] …..

            Recent news on the late Ted Kennedy’s brother-in-law: (This is his second “bid” he went down with his Judge daddy, in 2005…)

            Mandeville businessman given 11-year prison sentence for …
            http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/06/raymond_reggie_given_11-year_p.html
            The Times‑Picayune
            Jun 18, 2015 – Raymond Reggie, 52, was sentenced to 135 months in prison and ordered to pay $1.2 million in restitution Wednesday … managed advertising for car dealerships in southeast Louisiana….

          • “Fred Koch then helped spearhead a national advertisement in the New York Times blaming Kennedy’s assassination on the communists

            Irony alert!

            The left wing buffs here are accusing Fred Koch of doing the exact same thing they are doing: blaming the killing on partisan enemies.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            The Kochs funded second-rate scientists who pushed skepticism about the dangers of tobacco: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/tobacco-dark-money-norquist-koch-brothers

            The Kochs funded second-rate scientists [http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract] via the Heartland Institute and other outfits to “refute” Global warming. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VvCeIfkrLIUhttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VvCeIfkrLIU

            The Kochs funded Lone Nutterism: “Fred Koch then helped spearhead a national advertisement in the New York Times blaming Kennedy’s assassination on the communists – See more at: http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/07/187769/his-dad-charles-koch-was-bircher-new-documents#sthash.amKm2B28.dpuf“

            The Koch’s funded the Lone Nutter NOVA show you were on that showcased Mister Larry Sturdivan, who still refuses to admit that vastly better credentialed NAA authorities than he or Ken Rahn, Ph.D., Drs. Randich and Grant, and vastly better statisticians, Professor Spiegelman et al, have demolished Vince Guinn’s claims about NAA and JFK: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation_Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt.html

            When there’s a wacky right-wing position to defend, the Kochs are right there, and you’re right there with them, .John, Mr. “Heartland Institute expert.” https://www.heartland.org/john-mcadams

            Ya just can’t make this stuff up! ;~>

            Gary

          • When there’s a wacky right-wing position to defend, the Kochs are right there, and you’re right there with them, .John, Mr. “Heartland Institute expert.” https://www.heartland.org/john-mcadams

            You haven’t posted any evidence that the Koch brothers even care about the JFK assassination. Since you think every conservative is evil, and all evil people believe in a lone assassin, that follows in your mind.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            .John writes,

            “You haven’t posted any evidence that the Koch brothers even care about the JFK assassination. Since you think every conservative is evil, and all evil people believe in a lone assassin, that follows in your mind.”

            I haven’t? ; ~ >

            The Kochs funded Lone Nutterism: “Fred Koch then helped spearhead a national advertisement in the New York Times blaming Kennedy’s assassination on the communists – See more at:http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/07/187769/his-dad-charles-koch-was-bircher-new-documents#sthash.amKm2B28.dpuf“

            The Koch’s funded the Lone Nutter NOVA show you were on that showcased Mister Larry Sturdivan, who still refuses to admit that vastly better credentialed NAA authorities than he or Ken Rahn, Ph.D., Drs. Randich and Grant, and vastly better statisticians, Professor Spiegelman et al, have demolished Sturdivan-Rahn’s defense of Vince Guinn’s NAA work.
            JFK:https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation_Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt.html

          • paulf says:

            So that answers what I’ve asked, why John spends so much time doing this. He’s paid by the Kochs to represent their interests, and arguing with us must be part of his retainer. You couldn’t pay me enough to spend time on an Internet site and argue but then again I don’t need the money.

        • Let’s look at just how deep the roots of John Mcadams’ legal support runs.

          http://watchdog.org/209357/john-mcadams-speech-marquette-university/

          Rich Eisenberg, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty
          http://www.will-law.org

          ‘In 2011 and during the 2012 recall campaign, Americans for Prosperity Foundation spent millions on advertising and other activity on his [Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker] behalf. The organization, whose chairman is David Koch [Heartland Foundation], received $40,000 in 2011 and 2012 from Bradley.

          ‘And when the law was challenged in court, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty [Rick Eisenberg] filed “friend-of-the-court” briefs in its support. The Milwaukee-based group received $375,000 from the foundation during 2012.

          http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-30/the-conservative-group-behind-scott-walker-s-political-rise

          The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.[1] It is a conservative, libertarian, public interest law firm backed by a $1 million grant from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.[2]

          ‘Harry Bradley was one of the original charter members of the far right-wing John Birch Society, along with another Birch Society board member, Fred Koch, the father of Koch Industries’ billionaire brothers and owners, Charles and David Koch.[5]’
          http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Great links Dr. Aguilar and Leslie. A good bit of this is stuff I’ve never read, thank you. This gives new meaning to the Wizard’s of Oz. I never really thought of Kansas a a bastion of republican power. But, there’s Ike, Dole, Lamar Hunt moving the Texans there to become the Chief’s. I never knew the Koch’s called it home. I thought they were Okie’s.

          • Tom S. says:

            Ronnie, why not resubmit your most recent post here?
            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/two-more-jfk-file-for-brennans-review/#comment-4895

            You admit your comment is off-topic, but you are also not replying to anyone who has commented in this thread. If you want to further discuss this with me, attempt it at the link above.

          • You are making it obvious that this is all political for you, and that your opinions about the assassination are driven by your leftist politics.

            But it ought to create some cognitive dissonance for you that even hard-left outlets like MSNBC, Mother Jones, and The Nation have given no credence to conspiracy theories.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            John:

            Your words:

            “Thank you for making it clear that you view the JFK assassination entirely though the lens of your leftist politics.”

            My words:

            So sorry to disappoint you, John, but you are barking up the wrong tree when you say “my leftist politics.” Here is a fact for you to ponder. I have NEVER voted for ANY politician. I am pretty sure that one has to vote for a leftist candidate before one can be viewed as leftist. And, unlike most of the crap that our government tells me “happened” in Dallas that didn’t, I can PROVE my voting record. I was able to vote in 1980. However, during high school, while reading about our government’s actions in Iran—you know the Shah and his killing, and then the Untied Fruit Company followed by reading about the Vietnam War, I decided right then and there that the United States political system is CORRUPT beyond repair.

            So, while you try to paint everyone who disagrees with the WR as leftist, sorry to disappoint you.

            Nope, don’t know George Soros and don’t care. Don’t know the Koch brothers and don’t care.

            What I do find interesting is that you are directly aligned with a family that hated JFK, to the point of printing leaflets declaring JFK as a “traitor.” Oh, I know, that was the father, the sons are “much different.” So, why you indicate that you are interested in the “truth,” YOUR political leanings and associations are all the more interesting.

            Do you have time for a couple of questions. I would assume with your “conservative” bent, you believe Obama a socialist, correct? But when your friends, the Koch, brothers buy dirty and corrupt politicians to make money at the expense of innocent people, that is “free enterprise” and the “American dream,” correct?

            Another question, since you told me I need to think like a “serious historian,” where in the US constitution does it all a US president to overthrow a foreign government because they don’t want to play nice with US business interests? Can you also point to the part of the US constitution that allows for lobbyists? PAC’s? I have looked and looked and I can find nothing.

            I won’t even ask if Allen Dulles and Fred Koch knew each other…

          • But when your friends, the Koch, brothers buy dirty and corrupt politicians to make money at the expense of innocent people, that is “free enterprise” and the “American dream,” correct?

            Actually, I would love to be friends with the Koch brothers, but I never met them.

            But you don’t seem to mind Soros, or these people:

            http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/tom-steyer-campaign-donor-103617

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us/bloomberg-plans-a-50-million-challenge-to-the-nra.html

            Why is that?

            But the more you fuss and fume about politics, the more it becomes obvious that your opinions on the JFK assassination are driven simply by your political opinions.

            I don’t like Communists, but I don’t blame them (well . . . not more than one lone Communist) for the JFK assassination.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            John,

            Your words:

            “But the more you fuss and fume about politics, the more it becomes obvious that your opinions on the JFK assassination are driven simply by your political opinions.”

            My words:

            Well, I guess your attempt to label me as a leftist was shot to hell. I knew that you were either going to use the words”hate,” “ad hominem,” or “fuss and fume.” At least you didn’t disappoint.

            I first traveled to Dallas in the early eighties, around 84, I believe. I was down there before the 6th floor was even open to visitors. I have since been back three more times, and I have traveled to all of the key locations from that fateful day. And, unlike the WC and its investigators, I can actually prove that I was in Dallas and in front of the Texas Theater and on the grassy knoll, etc, etc.

            So, while you resort to your favorite phrase, fuss and fume, my politics have very little to do with the Kennedy assassination. As I have told you on several occasions, I could CARE LESS who killed JFK. Does not matter one whit to me. So use fuss and fume as much as you want, but you are mistaken about “my politics.”

            I DO CARE about the idea of democracy. And about freedom. And honesty. And transparency. I would think you would as well, since you say you are a conservative and you work at a Catholic university. I don’t remember much about my Catholic upbringing, but I believe those values still matter, correct?

            For me, it is simple. We have not been told the truth. Not in 1963, 73, 83, 93 03, you can fill in the blank. Just recently, on this site, there was a thread about the CIA and a “benign cover-up.” Tell me, John, what is a benign cover-up? You tell 1/4 of the truth and 3/4 lies? Or is it 50/50, truth and lies? Could you help me understand a “benign cover-up?”

            Let me help:

            “For these reasons, I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald. Anything that the Agency told us that incriminated, in some fashion, the Agency may well be reliable as far as it goes, but the truth could well be that it materially understates the matter.

            What the Agency did not give us none but those involved in the Agency can know for sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.

            Tell me, John, did you read the line “none but those involved in the agency can know for sure?”

            So, when you tell me that we know all there is to know, and the evidence is all there, I can offer you Mr. Blakey’s response to your assertion. And, much to your chagrin, he WAS ACTUALLY more involved in the investigation than you.

            I would LOVE to discuss Mr. Blakey’s comments. Would you?

          • Well, I guess your attempt to label me as a leftist was shot to hell. I knew that you were either going to use the words ”hate,” “ad hominem,” or “fuss and fume.” At least you didn’t disappoint.

            You didn’t disappoint, since you did exactly what I expected you to do.

            Do you believe there was a conspiracy?

            If so, what evidence do you have?

            Why will you never discuss evidence?

            Is it that you know, deep down, that the supposed “conspiracy evidence” is pretty much entirely bogus?

  13. Bob Prudhomme says:

    From Pat Speer

    “Geeez, McClelland is not what people want him to be, okay? He initially said the wound was of the left temple.”

    Pat Speer is attempting to mislead the membership here. Here is where this originated, found in Dr. McClelland’s medical report of 22/11/63:

    “The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone.”

    Is Pat Speer REALLY attempting to state that Dr. McClelland originally believed there was a massive blowout to JFK’s left temple?

    Would it not be more likely that Dr. McClelland believed the entrance wound was on the left temple?

    Here is how Dr. McClelland describes the head wound to the Warren Commission:

    “Dr. McCLELLAND – As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.”

    NOWHERE in his WC testimony does Dr.McClelland describe a large wound in JFK’s left temple.

    • Gary Aguilar says:

      I think you’re right, Bob.

      McClelland apparently took professor Marion Jenkins,MD, the anesthesiologist’s, word that there was an entrance wound in the left temple. “Pepper” Jenkins was in a good position to know, since anesthesiologists sit but inches from the head during surgery.

      Part I

      Here’s the “rest of the story”:In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described “a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.” (WC–Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, “Part of the brain was herniated. I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound…” (WC–V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit, “…the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit…” (WC–V6:51.)

      Jenkins described a wound in JFK’s left temple to Specter. Jenkins: “…I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.” Specter: “The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins.” Jenkins: “Well, I was feeling for–I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also.” A few moments later Jenkins again pursued the possibility that there had been a wound in the left temple: “…I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline, because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound there (indicating) (sic). Specter: “Indicating the left temporal area?” Jenkins: “Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating) (sic-presumably pointing to where he had identified the wound in prior testimony–the right rear of the skull), but you have answered that for me (that ‘the autopsy report discloses no such development’).” (WC-V6:51)

      In an interview with the HSCA’s Andy Purdy on 11-10-77 Marion Jenkins was said to have expressed that as an anesthesiologist he (Jenkins) “…was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the closest views of the head wound…believes he was ‘…the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.’) (sic)…Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out–it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right–rear of the head.” (Emphasis added) (HSCA-V7:286-287) In an interview with the American Medical News published on 11-24-78 Jenkins said, “…(Kennedy) had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out.”.

      See part 2 for the rest

      G

      • Photon says:

        “McClelland apparently took professor Marion Jenkins,MD, the anesthesiologist’s , word that there was an entrance wound in the left temple”.
        Within hours of the death McClelland was relying not on his own observations as to the nature of JFK’s wounds but WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE TOLD HIM. As McClelland himself admitted that he never moved JFK’s head it becomes apparent that some of the observations he claimed to have made were simply impossible as he could not have seen the aspects of the head that would be required to be seen make those observations. It should be apparent that this statement confirms that McClelland’s observations of the head wound were neither as extensive nor as as accurate as Dr. Aguilar implies. Is it not correct to state that the ER physicians discussed the case among themselves after leaving the ER prior to writing their Nov. 22,1963 statements? Is it not likely that the written reports of the head wound were based more on collective interpretation than individual observation? This would explain why so many of the ER docs positioned the head wound further back than the autopsy photos and reports show it to actually to have been. Aside from Jenkins and Kemp NOBODY actually saw the true nature of the head wound. By the time JFK hit the ER the mass of hair, clotted blood and tissue obscured the head wound enough that the ER staff did not recognize it as a fatal wound-ergo the resusitative effort that NEVER would have transpired IF the ER staff had been aware of the true nature of the wound and the hopeless situation.

        • Photon says:

          Of course Kemp refers to Dr. Kemp Clark.

        • ‘Aside from Jenkins and Kemp NOBODY actually saw the true nature of the head wound.’ — photon

          I anticipate photon will split hairs here and argue he qualified his statement with “the true nature”; but I’ve long been curious how this young nurse’s observation has been persistently disregarded in the ongoing debate. She was after all the first trained medical attendant to reach Kennedy and observe his head before it was place on the gurney. She explicitly stated under oath that she saw the BACK OF HIS HEAD, and when asked about that condition she stated that ‘it was very bad . . . I just saw ONE LARGE HOLE.’ Might Nurse Bowron have shared that with the doctors as they prepared to record what they had observed without ever having rolled Kennedy over after he entered the ER?

          Mr. SPECTER – And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy’s condition? 
Miss BOWRON – He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy’s knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head. 
Mr. SPECTER – You saw the condition of his what? 
Miss BOWRON – The back of his head. 
Mr. SPECTER – And what was that condition? 
Miss BOWRON – Well, it was very bad—you know. 
Mr. SPECTER – How many holes did you see? 
Miss BOWRON – I just saw one large hole. 
Mr. SPECTER – Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole? 
Miss BOWRON – No, sir. 
Mr. SPECTER – Did you notice any other wound on the President’s body? 
Miss BOWRON – No, sir.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bowron.htm

      • Photon says:

        This lack of accurate physical examination is confirmed by Jenkins’ statement to the others as they were preparing to start a thoracotomy for open chest massage when he said that before they cracked the chest they needed to look at the head wound. If the head wound was as obvious to the ER staff as Dr. Aguilar claims it was Jenkins statement would never have been necessary.
        This brings us to the point of Dr. Aguilar’s claims about the validity and accuracy of the ER docs wound interpretations. I have referred to previously published medical reports that have established by retrospective studies that ER interpretations of bullet wound characteristics and locations are accurate only about 50% of the time. In the case of the confused, brief (15 minutes or less), hurried ( marked by the incomplete chest tube placement) treatment attempt at Parkland marked by an incomplete physical exam where the patient wasn’t even turned over and two bullet wounds were completely missed by the staff that level of accuracy was probably even less.
        Of course Dr. Aguilar thinks that the X-rays and autopsy photos were faked-they do not agree with his interpretation of what the ER physicians described. The simple explanation is as I stated above-the initial ER physician interpretations of the wounds were not correct, for the reasons that I stated. Dr. Aguilar’s brushing off of McClelland’s left temple statement reveals that he apparently never considered that McClelland’s wound perceptions have been clouded by time and exposure to conspiracy factoids-and have been inaccurate even from the beginning on Nov. 22, 1963 when his statement can now be seen based NOT on his direct observation, but in part on what he was told by others.
        As the ER physician Parkland written statements were prepared AFTER the authors discussed the situation among themselves their value as eyewitness evidence is less than meets the eye.
        Dr. Aguilar’s attempt to impeach the findings of the autopsy team (confirmed by the most respected forensic pathologists in the country including the pathologist who tried to keep the body in Dallas) with the ER physicians’ rushed, inaccurate and incomplete observations should be seen for what it is- simply wrong.

        • Tom S. says:

          Welcome back!
          Isn’t it ironic that Dr. McAdams is constantly demanding,

          http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/dr-robert-mcclelland-a-story-he-feels-compelled-to-share/#comment-863684
          Can you post a citation for this?

          I’m not doubting it, just wanting the source.

          Whereas, you never include a supporting citation,(an internet link) and probably never will.

          • Photon says:

            Sorry, I don’t know Dr. McClelland’s genealogy nor who his cousin borrowed a cup of sugar from.
            The ER physician written reports were published in the Warren Report.
            I referenced the ER study previously as per the Index Medicus article notation-admittedly months ago.
            I quoted directly from Dr. Aguilar’s comment.
            The pathologist reviews of the autopsy report came from the records of the HSCA .

        • Gary Aguilar says:

          Photon writes:

          ” I have referred to previously published medical reports that have established by retrospective studies that ER interpretations of bullet wound characteristics and locations are accurate only about 50% of the time.”

          This is false, though an assertion made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. But in this case, the evidence Photon has misrepresented is easily at hand: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8113716

          The error rate was indeed near 50%, but ONLY regarding the number of gunshot wounds and whether they were entrance or exit wounds. There was NO data that errors were made about the LOCATION of the wounds, which is the heart of the controversy re JFK. This has been pointed out to Photon in the past; he seems to have forgotten it.

          But the issue raises the obvious question: If Photo posits witness error, and if error is random, 50% going one way, 50% the other as per the paper he misrepresented, then the near witness unanimity that JFK’s skull wound was posterior (occipital-parietal, etc.) seems to disprove simple error. Unless Photo somehow imagines all the trauma surgeons made the same mistake. Having been involved myself as a TRAUMA SURGEON at UCLA-Harbor General Hospital, I give that possibility no credit.

          Gary

        • Gary Aguilar says:

          In explaining why Parkland trauma professors wrongly believed JFK’s skull wound was “occipital-parietal,” posterior, Photon argues that the doctors didn’t really get a good look. JFK “wasn’t even turned over,” Photon claims.

          This, as with so much else, is apparently false. As has been previously been pointed out to him:

          The Boston Globe raised the issue, reporting that, “some [Parkland] doctors doubted the extent to which a wound to the rear of the head would have been visible since the President was lying supine with the back of his head on a hospital cart.”
          The Globe immediately refuted that speculation: “But others, like [Dr. Richard] Dulaney and [neurosurgeon Dr. Robert] Grossman, said the head at some point was lifted up, thereby exposing the rear wound.” Similarly, author David Lifton reported that Parkland emergency nurse Audrey Bell, who couldn’t see JFK’s head wound though she was standing on the right side, asked Dr. Perry, “‘Where was the wound?’ Perry pointed to the back of the President’s head and moved the head slightly in order to show her the wound.” During sworn interviews with the JFK Review Board in 1998, Dr. Paul Peters reported, “[anesthesiologist Dr. Marion T.] Jenkins said, ‘Boys, before you think about opening the chest, you’d better step up here and look at this brain.’ And so at that point I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked in the President’s head … .” The ARRB’s Gunn interviewed neurosurgeon Robert Grossman, MD on March 21, 1997, reporting, “[Grossman] and Kemp Clark [Chairman of Neurosurgery at Parkland] [sic] together lifted President Kennedy’s head so as to be able to observe the damage to the President’s head.”
          Thus it seems reasonable to suppose that not only did they have plenty of time to get a good look at Kennedy’s skull injuries, the Dallas doctors took responsible and appropriate steps to examine the skull wound before pronouncing the President dead. However, their early descriptions don’t square well with the autopsy photographs.

          Bradlee, Ben. “Dispute on JFK assassination evidence persists.” Boston Globe, 6/21/81, p. A-23.
          Lifton, David. Best Evidence. New York: Carroll & Graf, 1988, p.704.
          ARRB depositions of Parkland witnesses, p. 30.
          ARRB MD #185. ARRB interview with Dr. Robert G. Grossman, 3/21/97.

          Of course Photon admits that Kemp Clark, MD and “Pepper” Jenkins, MD (the anesthesiologist who sat literally inches from JFK’s head) probably had a good look.

          Here’s what they said, on 11.22.63, as per the JFK “Bible,” the Warren Report:

          Warren Report:

          P. 518: Kemp Clark, MD: “There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region … There was considerable loss of scakp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebrellar tissue was extruding from the wound.” Undated, typed noted.

          p. 524-525: In a hand-written hospital note: “a large 3 x3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present….there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also….There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region …. Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination….” 11.22.63, 16:15 hrs. Kemp Clark, MD

          P. 529 – 30: “There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.” M. T. Jenkins, MD, 11.22.63, 16:30.

          Perhaps Photon will agree that Parkland trauma surgeon-professors are yahoos who don’t know any anatomy, or they’d have gotten it “right.”

          • Photon says:

            In 1988 on the PBS program ” Who shot President Kennedy” Jenkins,Peters,Dulany AND McClelland all stated that the autopsy pictures revealed the head wound to be exactly as they saw it at Parkland.
            It should be obvious that the initial statements of these physicians regarding placement of the head wound further back than it really was were in error. That can only mean that either a. They never saw the wound as clearly as is claimed by CT believers b. they had inaccurate memories of exactly where the wound was c. They were all liars.
            Now if McClelland was such a great witness why did he state in his first written report that JFK was shot in the left temple and that the throat wound was a fragment from that shot (records of Parkland ER staff from the Warren Report) implying that the throat wound was an EXIT wound?
            Dr. Aguilar, are you claiming to be a trauma surgeon? Are you stating that Dr. Grossman was an unimpeachable witness? What evidence do you have aside from his statements that he was intimately involved in the resusitative effort? I understand that your give Lifton’s claims about what Nurse Bell told him great credit, but didn’t he find Grossman not credible? Talk about having it both ways!
            The Bowman Gray study does support what I stated about inaccuracy in the ER regarding bullet wounds. As far as location of the wounds, the Parkland experience confirms that the location of wounds can be erroneous. The ER team never got the location of two district bullet wounds correct.

    • Gary Aguilar says:

      Part II:
      Amazingly, in an interview with author Gerald Posner on March 3, 1992, Jenkins’ recollection had changed dramatically. “The description of the cerebellum was my fault,” Jenkins insisted, “When I read my report over I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital.” (Gerald Posner, Case Closed”, p. 312) Jenkins has obviously forgotten that in his own note prepared, typed, and signed on the day of the assassination, Jenkins said, “a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic)”, and HSCA’s Purdy reported that Jenkins said “occipital or temporal bone” was blown out.

      When told by Posner that Robert McClelland, MD had claimed, “I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher.” Jenkins responded, “Bob (McClelland) is an excellent surgeon. He knows anatomy. I hate to say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right…”. (Posner G. Case Closed. p. 313) Clearly, Jenkins had forgotten that he himself had claimed that “cerebellum was hanging out” (as had Ronald Coy Jones, MD–see below). [Might this controversy be resolved in Jenkins’ and Jones’ favors? Possibly Jenkins believes that cerebellum was ‘hanging out’ but that it had not reached the surface of the gurney despite the close proximity of the skull in the supine position to its surface?]

      Jenkins, however, was not through with discrediting McClelland. To Posner, Jenkins explained how McClelland had made an error, which McClelland later corrected, that there was a wound in JFK’s left temple. “I’ll tell you how that happened,” Jenkins explained, “When Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, ‘Where are his wounds?’ And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my right hand, and was trying to take the President’s temporal pulse, and I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left temple as the wound.” (Gerald Posner, Case Closed”. p. 313)Ignoring the absurdity of such a supposition for the moment, Jenkins failed to reveal an important part of the story. Jenkins failed to tell Posner,who was apparently too uninformed to know, that it was Jenkins himself who had most strikingly claimed that there was an entrance wound in the left temple, as Jenkins’ Commission testimony (cited above) proves.

      As we will see, Dr. Jenkins’ faulty, and possibly self-serving memory seems to have frequently plagued him … .
      http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Two things come to mind regarding Jenkins and Posner. First, Posner is well known for playing fast and loose with the facts, and attributing opinions to witnesses that he concocted himself inside his pointy little head. Second, any reversal of remembrance, such as seen in Dr. Jenkins, is either an indication of early onset dementia, or an indication that someone, along with his family, has received some very serious threats.

        • pat speer says:

          You just haven’t done the homework, Bob. Carrico, Jenkins, Perry, Baxter, and Jones all retreated from their earlier descriptions of the wound once shown the photos. Clark refrained from comment except to complain about conspiracy theorists trying to stir up trouble to make a buck. He also helped Lattimer with his tests. So, no, this idea that the Parkland witnesses were resolute in the face of the medical evidence is a myth. As is the claim most CTs “support” the Parkland witnesses. As I’ve discovered, many prominent CTs hate the likes of Carrico, Jenkins, and Perry, for doing what all doctors are trained to do–defer to other doctors with more expertise. None of these doctors took notes during Kennedy’s treatment. Their only recorded recollections were jotted down an hour or more after Kennedy’s death. It would be extremely unprofessional of them to insist their recollections of Kennedy’s wounds were precise and accurate and that the report written by those who’d studied his wounds was in error. It just doesn’t work that way. I spent three years researching the case full time. Most of that time was spent reading forensics journals and books on curious cases. And I never came across one instance–not one–where the recollections of emergency room personnel were used to overturn the findings of a pathologist.

          • “And I never came across one instance–not one–where the recollections of emergency room personnel were used to overturn the findings of a pathologist.”~pat speer

            Well then, if it was a choice between ER doctors and a pathologist, the pathologists involved would of necessity be FORENSIC PATHOLOGISTS.

            Mr Speer knows as well as everyone on this forum that the doctors who prosecuted the charade called the “JFK Autopsy”, were general pathologists who had never performed a post mortem on a gunshot victim in their entire career.
            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            And yet all of these Parkland doctors, in their first day medical reports and in their Warren Commission testimonies, speak of a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK’s head.

            IF the large gaping wound had been anywhere but the back of JFK’s head, it would have been obvious at a glance to anyone in Trauma Room One, as JFK was lying with the back of his head on the cart, and EVERY other part of his head would have been visible.

            If JFK’s large gaping head wound was where the WC clamed it was, would it not have been very obvious to the doctors present at Parkland, and would they not likely have mentioned this obvious wound in their medical reports and testimonies?

            I’m so happy for the doctors whose memories improved so much over the years!

          • IF the large gaping wound had been anywhere but the back of JFK’s head, it would have been obvious at a glance to anyone in Trauma Room One,

            You need to get past the notion that “back of the head” meant that occipital bone was blown out.

            They could see the wound because it was in posterior (mostly) parietal bone.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/faceup.htm

      • Gary Aguilar says:

        McAdams writes:

        “John McAdams
        “March 20, 2016 at 5:54 pm
        “IF the large gaping wound had been anywhere but the back of JFK’s head, it would have been obvious at a glance to anyone in Trauma Room One,

        “You need to get past the notion that “back of the head” meant that occipital bone was blown out.

        “They could see the wound because it was in posterior (mostly) parietal bone.

        “http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/faceup.htm”

        This citation of McA’s is typical in proving how tendentious and selective the asst. professor can be.

        Arguing that the docs made an error on the skull wound’s location because they didn’t lift up the supine JFK from the gurney, at McAdams’ link he quotes Parkland witness interviews with the Boston Globe, Gerald Posner(!), and the ARRB, ALL TO THE EFFECT they didn’t lift up JFK’s head and take a look. By all means, click his link and see for yourselves.

        The Boston Globe did INDEED raise the issue, reporting that, “some [Parkland] doctors doubted the extent to which a wound to the rear of the head would have been visible since the President was lying supine with the back of his head on a hospital cart.” But the Globe immediately refuted that speculation: “But others, like [Dr. Richard] Dulaney and [neurosurgeon Dr. Robert] Grossman, said the head at some point was lifted up, thereby exposing the rear wound.”

        Similarly, author David Lifton reported that Parkland emergency nurse Audrey Bell, who couldn’t see JFK’s head wound though she was standing on the right side, asked Dr. Perry, “‘Where was the wound?’ Perry pointed to the back of the President’s head and moved the head slightly in order to show her the wound.”

        During sworn interviews with the JFK Review Board in 1998, Dr. Paul Peters reported, “[anesthesiologist Dr. Marion T.] Jenkins said, ‘Boys, before you think about opening the chest, you’d better step up here and look at this brain.’ And so at that point I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked in the President’s head … .”

        The ARRB’s Gunn interviewed neurosurgeon Robert Grossman, MD on March 21, 1997, reporting, “[Grossman] and Kemp Clark [Chairman of Neurosurgery at Parkland] [sic] together lifted President Kennedy’s head so as to be able to observe- the damage to the President’s head.”

        Bradlee, Ben. “Dispute on JFK assassination evidence persists.” Boston Globe, 6/21/81, p. A-23.
        Lifton, David. Best Evidence. New York: Carroll & Graf, 1988, p.704.
        ARRB depositions of Parkland witnesses, p. 30.
        ARRB MD #185. ARRB interview with Dr. Robert G. Grossman, 3/21/97.

        Though the asst. professor quotes the Boston Globe and ARRB interviews, he withheld all the claims that would have undermined the myth he was trying to propagate. He just hoped readers wouldn’t notice. He gets away with this sort of thing with most readers.

        Readers are encouraged to read the Globe article themselves: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Autopsy%20JFK%20Notes%20Press%20Clippings/Item%20013.pdf

        Ya can’t make this stuff up!

        Gary

        • Photon says:

          Gunshot Wounds:Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics and Forensic Techniques, Second Edition.1998.Vincent J.M. DiMaio,M.D.
          Regarding ER bullet wound interpretation:
          ” Emergency room physicians often miss head wounds …and back wounds because they fail to look at the patient’s back.” Sounds familiar?
          ” It is also quite common for a physician to fail to note in the medical records the EXACT LOCATION of a wound…A gunshot wound may be described only as ‘in the right back’ without any localizing information.”
          Dr. Aguilar’s belief that the ER perceptions of the head wounds were infallible is contradicted by the respected forensic pathologist Dr. DiMaio. Does Dr. Aguilar know more about the subject of ER bullet wound interpretation? How often does Dr.Aguilar as an opthalmologist even go to an ER? I wound be willing to bet that he spent more time in the ER during his internship 2 or 3 month rotation in the 1970s than he has in the nearly 40 years of his Opthalmology practice. And yet he claims to be an expert on how precise emergency room physician examinations are. He is simply not credible on this subject.

          • Photon says:

            Page 256 is the source for the quotes mentioned above.

          • Tom S. says:

            Maybe another commenter will attempt (fruitlessly) to present a link to page 256… I will see it, though.
            (I’ll see it for a second time, I just did a quick search ..under 20 seconds.. and found the book page, displaying the quotes Photon presented.)

          • ed connor says:

            So you have twenty odd surgeons and nurses who all observe an occipital wound. You say they must all be mistaken, based on the BOH autopsy photo.
            1. John Stringer, who took the photos, was equivocal about their accuracy.
            2. Clint Hill, who was the first person to see the wound, testified to the Commission that
            “The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed.”
            3. Dr. Boswell’s sketch, made at the autopsy, shows a section of the occiput listed as “missing.”
            4. Thomas Robinson, who embalmed the body for Gawler’s Sons Funeral Home, gave a statement in 1992, with permission from Gawler’s, that there was a large gaping hole in the back of the head. This was patched by placing a piece of rubber over it. Thinks the skull was full of Plaster of Paris.
            In a courtroom, the scales of justice would not be balanced by the single contested autopsy photo, when weighed against the scores of eyewitnesses, from Hill to Parkland to Gawler’s.
            And, Dr. MacAdams, the esteemed pathologists hired by the HSCA did not examine the body; they simply reviewed the same photos that remain controversial today.
            Garbage in, garbage out.

          • Having read Gunshot Wounds:Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics and Forensic Techniques, Second Edition.1998.Vincent J.M. DiMaio,M.D.:

            I must say that having the PDF open before me at this very moment, what I find on page 256 is Figure 8.28 (a photo of, Slightly irregular wound of entrance surrounded by pellet holes
            (range estimated at 5 to 7 ft).

            And text saying:

            In 12, 16, and 20 gauges, one will have a circular wound of entrance in the
            center of a Maltese Cross abrasion. In .410 gauge shot cups have only three
            petals; thus, three equally spaced rectangular abrasions radiate from the
            entrance rather than four (Figure 8.30).
            In the author’s experience, petals marks from plastic shot cups have
            always been accompanied by powder tattooing of the adjacent skin if the skin.
            . . .
            Followed by another photo:
            Figure 8.29 Intermediate range 12-gauge shotgun wound of abdomen with
            “petal” marks from Remington Power Piston® wad.

            However, I notice Tom has photocopied a page from the physical book of pg 256.

            To address DiMaio’s general remarks; I would say that using a ‘general rule’ to override the specific testimony of certain doctors who describe their experiences in detail, is to be somewhat disingenuous.

            These doctors did indeed miss the back wound because they did not turn over the body.
            However they did NOT miss the head wound, and described in in some detail.
            . . .
            I prefer specifics to “mantra” I hope the forum forgives me this personal “foible” of mine.
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Willy, I merged your two comments because you shared a link in your first of the merged comments, to a .pdf version of the source material cited by Photon.
            Photon has chosen not to include links in his comments. Please respect his choice in keeping readers from easily accessing and verifying his sources and
            quotes.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Always shooting the messenger, Photon. This is a clear sign of a desperate man who has run out of logical arguments.

            So, you believe eyewitnesses, even learned doctors at Parkland Hospital, are notoriously incapable of accurately recalling details; in this case, the location of JFK’s large gaping head wound?

            Know what else eyewitnesses are notoriously incapable of doing? The answer is eyewitnesses are incapable of agreeing with each other when recalling details of the same event.

            Therefore, it is rather surprising the majority of the medical staff at Parkland, including nurses, all saw a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK’s head.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            Photon continues to conflate bullet wounds with bodily wounds. They’re not the same, in the least.

            Photon argues that the Parkland docs were in error on the LOCATION of JFK’s skull wound, not the location of the bullet wounds. Different issues, entirely. And yet if Photon was right they were in error, how does he explain the virtual unanimity on the parts of the many Parkland docs that JFK’s skull wound (not, for the umpteenth time the bullet wound) was “occipital parietal.” Surely, if only by chance someone, if not the examinging neurosurgeon Kemp Clark, would have described the wound reasonably accurately, right. But somehow, somehow!, they all made virtually the same error.

            Photon needs to offer a sensible explanation on how “random error” ended being anything but random.

            And re whether I’m calling myself a trauma surgeon, I was once the admitting general surgery resident in the emergency room at UCLA-Harbor General Hospital in Torrance, CA. I was the guy who first saw the gunshot wounds, the knife wounds, etc., and the guy who ran the Code Blues in the ER. I saw a number of gunshot wounds, though none quite like JFK’s. And among the rescuscitation procedures I performed was an open heart massage on a victim of a fatal car crash.

            I’m no longer in general surgery, but in ophthalmology, but I did that work long enough, and in a place at least as well respected and as busy as Parkland, to know that we trauma surgeons actually look at the wounds of our patients during emergency maneuvers such as CPR. It’s preposterous to imagine that the Parkland trauma docs didn’t examined JFK’s head wound, particularly JFK’s senior treating professor-neurosurgeon, Kemp Clark, MD.

            Warren Report: (p. 517 ff – http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0271a.htm):P. 518: Kemp Clark, MD: “There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region … There was considerable loss of scakp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebrellar tissue was extruding from the wound.” Undated, typed noted.

            p. 524-525: In a hand-written hospital note: “a large 3 x3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present….there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also….There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region …. Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination….” 11.22.63, 16:15 hrs. Kemp Clark, MD

            But of course Photon’s free to think these guys were goofy doofuses, who didn’t know anterolateral from occipital-parietal. But then Photon’s never worked in a busy, academic trauma center as a trauma surgeon. Or has he? ; ~ >

          • Photon says:

            Bob, the Parkland physicians on the NOVA program stated that the autopsy photos that they saw matched their memories of what the head wound looked like. Since those pictures do not match the back -of-the-head descriptions that you are enamored with it is obvious that their back of the head perceptions were not accurate.Either their initial observations were erroneous or their memories were false.
            As you know several of the Parkland physicians who thought that they had seen cerebellum later admitted that they were wrong about that after seeing the autopsy report and seeing the photos.
            It actually is not surprising that many of the ER docs had a similar perception of the head wound-they discussed the wound among themselves and those who did not get a good look deferred to those who apparently had a better view. The proof of this is McClelland’s claim of a left temple wound ( the ONLY wound McClelland mentioned in his Nov 22 note) came directly from Jenkins.

          • Tom S. says:

            Photon, Dr. Perry was there, and he contradicts several things you’ve included in your comments as
            well as claims of Dr. McClelland. Dr. Perry seems relaxed and remarkably candid. These are interesting interview highlights to read……

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M59If_Perry.pdf
            HSCA January 11, 1978 taped interview of Dr. Malcolm O. Perry

          • “Bob, the Parkland physicians on the NOVA program stated that the autopsy photos that they saw matched their memories of what the head wound looked like.”~Photon

            Perhaps Photon would attempt to reconcile what all of those Parkland doctors are on record as saying about the large avulsive wound in the occipital-parietal, the photo’s of them holding their hands at that portion of the back of their heads when asked to show where they saw the wound — with the autopsy photos and X-rays that are publicly available that we have discussed here at great length.

            Are there photos and X-rays in those archives that the public has not seen?
            Did the NOVA program you refer to do some deceitful editing of what the doctors were answering?

            Since it is obvious that the doctors all described this large wound in the back of the head, and the photos and X-rays WE see show no such wound, how do we reconcile this situation?

            Something is clearly amiss here, and I will not accept that these doctors were all merely “mistaken” in their original assertions.

            Since we do not see what pictures these doctors are saying they agree with, how do we know what pictures they saw?
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Photon, Dr. Aguilar’s credentials are known, yours are not since you care to bring them up and question them.
            The bottom line here is we have multiple Doctors and a few Nurses, most experienced in Emergency Room Trauma saying: blowout, back of head.
            Then we have two of three NON Forensic Pathologists (with the only one that was, experienced in Review only, arriving late) to do an Autopsy supervised by Military officials. Gee Wally, they found no blowout.

          • Photon says:

            Ronnie, unfortunately you assume that non-specific descriptions of the head wound trump the findings of an autopsy conducted by 3 board-certified pathologists. Board-certified pathologists certainly are qualified to describe wound locations; the issues with the forensic-anatomic pathology debate in this case have always involved the processing of evidence and evaluations of wound trajectories ; the wound location debate among CTers and the subsequent claims of faked X-rays and faked photos is simply a response to the fact that the autopsy is the final statement as to where wounds are located and what medical disorders were present at the time of death. I quoted Dr. DiMaio’s criticism of ER wound interpretations precisely because so many of the Parkland ER issues matched what he discussed in his few paragraphs. You and virtually every other CTer who regard the rushed, incomplete and at times contradictory impressions of ER physicians who in some cases even later admitted that those impressions were erroneous ( eg.,see Jenkins’ Warren testimony) are laymen totally ignorant of standard medical practice and convention. The few medical professionals who adhere to the infallibility of the ER perceptions in this case are being disingenuous and willfully ignoring published data that proves that ER examinations are often simply erroneous. The legal records of many states are full of Malpractice suits that came about precisely because of errors of diagnosis in the ER. Even the CT supporter Randy Robertson, M.D. came to the conclusion that the ER wound interpretations were erroneous based on his review of the autopsy photos-and his presentation was posted on this very site several months ago.

          • _Nova`, 11/15/88 (see still photo in _Killing The Truth`)—before AND after viewing the official photos, McClelland places his hand on the right rear area of his head where he saw the wound on JFK and speculates, “that a large flap of skin is obscuring the large wound in the official photos.”
            pg. 8
            http://jfkhistory.com/bell/med%20evidence.pdf
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Tom S., does not Perry’s statement confirm what I have stated about McClelland’s note being the product of somebody else’s interpretation?
            Does not the fact that Perry states that he did not closely examine the head wound at least twice confirm that indeed he did not examine the head wound closely?
            Does not everything that Perry states in his interview support the notion that using the eyewitness ER perceptions of the true nature of JFK’s wounds is faulty?
            I am not sure what the point of posting the Perry interview was when instead of contradicting my opinions he largely confirmed them, especially in regards to McClelland’s now proven second-hand wound interpretations and how that contradicts his latter claims.

    • pat speer says:

      Of course, McClelland thought the wound was of the left temple. That’s what he wrote. It seems obvious, moreover, that he simply got his right confused with his left. That happens all the time. While some would like to pretend McClelland thought there was an entrance wound on the left temple and a large blowout on the back of the head, his report says nothing of this blowout wound. It follows then that he thought the one wound he saw was on the left temple. No doctor, at least no competent doctor, after all, would describe a wound they never saw in their report, while failing to describe the wound they’d observed up close. Get real.
      So that is what I mean when I say that McClelland is not the witness people think he is. His latter day claims the wound was on the back of the head are at odds with both his report written on the same day, and his subsequent statements to journalist Richard Dudman, in which he assured Dudman (who’d thought he’d seen a bullet hole in the windshield and was desperately looking for evidence the shots came from the front) that there was nothing about the head wound to suggest the shot came from the front. Nothing.
      And no, the frequent bellyache that McClelland was scared to tell Dudman what he saw makes no sense at all. A few months after talking to Dudman McClelland brought his recollections in line with those of his colleagues.and told the Warren Commission the wound was on the back of the head. Not exactly the actions of a scared man.
      And there’s also this. Harold Weisberg spoke to McClelland in the late sixties and McClelland told him he stood by the Warren Report and its conclusions all the shots came from behind.
      And this. McClelland was so confused by all this that he took to telling people he’d created the so-called McClelland drawing, which showed a wound entirely on the back of the head, even though he’d actually had nothing to do with the creation of this drawing. And even though, when pressed, he readily admitted that the wound he saw involved the top of the head by the ear.
      Witness his most recent statements to Jacob Carter, in which he said the only photos he has a problem with are the back of the head photos, which fail to show a hole on the back of the head, and that he had no problem with any of the photos showing a whole on the top of the head.
      So, like I said, he is not the reliable witness for a blow out wound on the back of the head many claim him to be. It’s time we get over this delusion.

      • his subsequent statements to journalist Richard Dudman, in which he assured Dudman (who’d thought he’d seen a bullet hole in the windshield and was desperately looking for evidence the shots came from the front) that there was nothing about the head wound to suggest the shot came from the front. Nothing.

        Can you post a citation for this?

        I’m not doubting it, just wanting the source.

        I think McClelland has always been honest, but appears to have said different things since he has been asked different questions, and how he responded has been interpreted through the biases of those questioning him (or looking at his statements).

        • John McAdams,
          This will be the 4th time I have attempted to get an answer out of you on the question about that set of X-rays showing the rear of the skull without the asserted blowout. See the complete question at:

          Willy Whitten
          March 19, 2016 at 11:24 pm, on this very thread.
          \\][//

          • I don’t know what your point is.

            I already told you that no occipital bone was blown out. You seemed to agree.

            Parietal bone was blown out on the right side from the cowlick area forward to the coronal suture.

            If you don’t read the x-rays that way, perhaps it’s because you don’t know how to read x-rays.

          • “I don’t know what your point is.”~McAdams

            My point is obvious “professor” these X-rays do NOT show what every doctor at Parkland described as the large avuslive wound in the occipital-parietal.

            Now, it took four times to get you to answer the question McAdams. Why is that?

            I would hazard to propose that you in fact realize there was such a wound in the rear of Kennedy’s head. That you have actually discussed how there was a mass of scalp and hair covering such a wound and that Humes described this himself; that this “flap” could be lifted when Kennedy was laying face forward, otherwise it covered the wound. But when Kennedy was lying on his back the wound would show.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            The credibility gap is yours, Willy. None of the doctors you picture had a good view of the head wound and based their position of the wound on the post resusitative discussion after everybody left the trauma room. You conspicuously avoid discussing the perceptions of the two Parkland doctors who actually has the best view of the head wound-Clark and Jenkins. Both were unapologetic supporters of the Warren Report conclusions.Several of the Parkland doctors confirmed that the autopsy pictures confirmed what they actually saw.
            McClelland’s perceptions of the head wound are completely impeached by his November 22 written statement where he merely recapitulates what Pepper Jenkins told him-unfortunately for McClelland Jenkins got it WRONG and admitted that fact later. That fact in itself shows that the greatest credibility gap of them all is relying on McClelland’s perception of the head wound as being accurate when McClelland himself deferred to Jenkins mistaken location of the head wound within five hours of the assassination. The only rational explanation for that is that McClelland never really examined the head wound after all, at least to the level of being confident to include his own observation.
            Now, the fact that he has held his shirt with JFK’s blood on it and made that fact public should raise questions in any serious researcher as to how his support of conspiracy viewpoints could increase the value of his item. Any takers on this uncomfortable issue?

  14. Bob Prudhomme says:

    In his medical report of 22/11/63, McClelland describes JFK’s head wound in one brief sentence:

    “The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple.”

    From this one sentence, Pat Speer attempts to interpret that McClelland was reporting a massive blowout in JFK’s left temple, and that the wound in his left temple was an exit wound.

    Seriously, Pat? McClelland was standing beside JFK’s head for quite some time during the emergency procedures. Was he really so incompetent as to place the blowout wound on the wrong side of the head, and in the temple area, where NO other doctor present in Trauma Room One reported seeing a massive blowout?

    When McClelland stated “a gunshot wound of the left temple” he meant exactly what it sounds like; a wound created by a gunshot. Some might say “to the left temple” but I have heard many who would have said “of the left temple”. It all depends on what part of the country you are in.

    • Roy W Kornbluth says:

      Bob,
      Along with Drs. McClelland and Jenkins at Parkland, Father Oscar L. Huber also saw a gunshot wound in the left temple barely into the hairline. He was well-acquainted with gore, had slaughtered and butchered farm animals, esp. hogs, before starting his late path to the priesthood at the age of 28. OLH received the first threat from his government before he even left the hospital grounds, “Remember, you don’t know anything,” from a Secret Service agent.

      Fr. Huber changed his story in later years. He denied that he met and talked with Mrs. Shirley Martin on the first anniversary of the JFKA. She became a friend a fellow researcher of Penn Jones, Jr. Here’s a link to a post on an Ed Forum topic that, in turn, has a link to The Midlothian Mirror article about Shirley Martin being quite steamed that Father Huber denied her more than thrice:

      http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19822#entry264492

      Mrs. Martin’s daughter Victoria and her friend Candy died 9-8-1967 when their VW Beetle was sideswiped in a hit-and-run. Shirley Martin gave up active investigation of JFKA after that.

      Also, Thomas Evan Robinson, at Gawler’s, saw a bullet wound in Kennedy’s left temple area. By then, of course it was plugged with wax.

      At least two head shots. One from South Knoll, a la Sherry Fiester, in left temple (NOT right temple), out right occiput, a small-bore. One from North (The Grassy) Knoll in right temporal-parietal, out nowhere because it was a frangible. Which I somehow got from Robert Prudhomme at Ed Forum or somewhere, I don’t know.

  15. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Pat Speer wrote:

    “Witness his most recent statements to Jacob Carter, in which he said the only photos he has a problem with are the back of the head photos, which fail to show a hole on the back of the head, and that he had no problem with any of the photos showing a whole on the top of the head.”

    LOL! Pat, do you ever read what you type before you post it? Do you not find the above sentence just a little ridiculous?

    Sorry to be the one to break it to you but, Dr. McClelland still seems to be a proponent of JFK having a large gaping wound in the right rear of his head; just as he has been from the beginning.

    • Pat Speer says:

      Let’s be clear, Bob. Dr. McClelland changed his interpretation of the wound’s location from the temple to the back of the head for his WC testimony, and never changed back. Many CT’s take from this, however, that he thought this wound was a blow- out exit wound on the back of the head for a shot from the front, when he thought no such thing prior to viewing the Z-film. And not only that, but many CTs use his statements to suggest the wound was restricted to the back of the head, and that therefore ALL the autopsy photos showing the head wound are fake, when he has been crystal clear for at least twenty years that he thinks ALL the autopsy photos are legit, but that scalp was pulled up in the back of the head photos to obscure the rearmost portion of the wound.
      Now, I’m not sure what you believe. But if you believe the back of the head was blown out and that there was surgery to the head to expand this wound at Bethesda, and that McClelland’s words support this, guess again. His words do not. He has long claimed he saw both the wound on the top of the head shown in the pictures, and the tracheotomy incision shown in the pictures.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Pat

        Show me, in McClelland’s medical report or his WC testimony, where Dr. McClelland stated he saw a large wound on the top of JFK’s head.

        And please, enough of twisting McClelland’s reference, in his medical report, to an entrance wound in JFK’s left temple into saying McClelland reported seeing a large gaping wound in JFK’s left temple.

        You are embarrassing yourself.

        • pat speer says:

          You’re letting your assumptions blur your vision, Bob. In his report, McClelland did not say there was an entrance wound in the left temple, and an exit wound on the back of the head. He wrote “The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple.” OF the left temple. That’s it. Only one head wound was noted at Parkland. Unless you want to believe McClelland was so incompetent he described a wound he never saw while failing to even mention the wound he supposedly closely studied, then it’s quite clear the wound “of the left temple” is the large wound he observed.

          Let’s look at this a different way. Within minutes of the shooting, eyewitness Bill Newman was on TV telling people he saw Kennedy get shot in the temple. His claim Kennedy was shot in the temple was soon confirmed by his wife and then Abraham Zapruder. In the meantime, Assistant Press Secretary Mac Kilduff told the nation Kennedy’s physician Dr. Burkley had said Kennedy was shot in the temple. And then an hour or two after that Dr. McClelland wrote a medical report in which the fatal wound was of the temple.

          And yet a certain crowd wants us to believe these witnesses were all mistaken, and that McClelland was reporting a wound he never saw but only believed existed based upon what someone had told him.

          And that’s both…desperate…and indicative of why those believing there was more to it than Oswald have such a hard time being taken seriously by those who’d prefer to believe the Warren Commission got it right.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Dr. McClelland’s medical report of 22/11/63 was very brief and to the point. It may be viewed in its entirety here, along with many other medical reports:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm

            Rather than going into details describing the large exit wound, McClelland gives us just one sentence in regard to the head wound:

            “The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple.”

            Note that McClelland reports massive head and brain injury FROM a gunshot wound of the left temple. In other words, the massive head damage was FROM the gunshot wound. Would he be telling us that an exit wound caused the massive amount of damage to JFK’s head? Wouldn’t that be a bit backwards?

            Pat Speer can spin great long posts (and he does) all day about this matter, and still not escape that McClelland was describing an entrance wound to JFK’s left temple; something that has never been ruled out as a possibility.

          • “then it’s quite clear the wound “of the left temple” is the large wound he (McClelland) observed.”~Pat Speer

            It is too obvious now that there simply was no wound to the left temple Pat. There WAS a wound to the RIGHT temple however, the entrance wound.
            I think this can be solved by presuming the McClelland said “left” when he meant ‘right’.

            ALL the other evidence and testimony is counter to a wound to the left temple.
            \\][//

          • pat speer says:

            Robert Prudhomme writes: “Note that McClelland reports massive head and brain injury FROM a gunshot wound of the left temple. In other words, the massive head damage was FROM the gunshot wound. Would he be telling us that an exit wound caused the massive amount of damage to JFK’s head? Wouldn’t that be a bit backwards?

            Pat Speer can spin great long posts (and he does) all day about this matter, and still not escape that McClelland was describing an entrance wound to JFK’s left temple; something that has never been ruled out as a possibility.”

            This is nonsense, Bob. By the time McClelland wrote his report, his colleagues had already gone on record claiming they’d thought the head wound to be an exit for the bullet entering the throat, or a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. No head wound beyond the large gaping hole had been observed. It follows, then, that McClelland thought the wound he observed was by the temple, which, ding ding ding, just so happens to be where it was observed by numerous witnesses in the plaza and outside the hospital.

            As stated, when shown the autopsy photos, McClelland has never claimed the photos are fake and that there was no wound by the temple. As stated, he has instead claimed the photos depict the wound he saw (but that he believes the wound stretched onto the back of the head). It’s beyond silly, IMO, to accept as gospel one part of McClelland’s latter-day claims (that the wound stretched onto the back of the head) while dismissing most everything else he ever said, including that the wound was apparent at the top of the head. Silly, and desperate.

          • pat speer says:

            Will Whitten writes: “It is too obvious now that there simply was no wound to the left temple Pat. There WAS a wound to the RIGHT temple however, the entrance wound.
            I think this can be solved by presuming the McClelland said “left” when he meant ‘right’.”

            This is my point precisely, with but one exception. No entrance wound to the right temple was noted at Parkland, or even discussed. It follows then, like night from day, that the temple wound described by McClelland was the large gaping wound he’d observed…on the right temple…precisely where it was observed by Bill Newman in the plaza before him, and by Humes and Stringer that night.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Left, Right, cha,cha,cha??? Youse guys have my head spinning. I’ve not studied the medical evidence in great detail but I’m confused. I’ve read somewhere about the undocumented possibility of a entrance wound in the hair line above the right eye / towards the ear. That’s all I recall.
            Now some say DR’s McClelland and Crenshaw reported At The Time a wound in the Left temple?
            This would make more sense of Sherry Fister’s assertion of a South Knoll shot, to me. Yet Willy, who support’s Fiester’s analysis also support’s a Right temple entrance wound. To me the right temple indicates the grassy knoll more so. While a South Knoll shot makes sense to me for more reasons than these I still can’t wrap my head around the physics of how a shot from there drives him back and to the left.
            I guess I’m easily confused.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            BTW, Tom will probably ask, but does anyone have any links regarding a left or right temple entrance wound?

  16. Bob Prudhomme says:

    John McAdams

    Parietal bone blown out in the posterior of JFK’s head would have been seen in the Back of Head autopsy photo.

    Also, many doctors referred to the wound as being “occipito-parietal”, meaning the wound overlapped the junction between occipital and parietal bones. A large gaping wound in this location would DEFNITELY be visible in the BOH photo.

    • Also, many doctors referred to the wound as being “occipito-parietal”, meaning the wound overlapped the junction between occipital and parietal bones. A large gaping wound in this location would DEFNITELY be visible in the BOH photo.

      No, because an “occipital wound” would not necessarily be in occipital bone.

      If that doesn’t sound right to you, you need to look at how the word is used by doctors, including top forensic pathologists:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        John

        I have spoken to many doctors. They are unanimous in agreeing the occipital portion of the head overlies the occipital bone.

      • “No, because an “occipital wound” would not necessarily be in occipital bone.”~McAdams

        That is as preposterous as Jim Fetzer saying, “No-Planes, doesn’t mean no planes” when spouting his nonsense No-Planes Theory about the planes that hit the World Trade Towers on 9/11.

        The both of you end up choking on your ankles with BS like this.
        \\][//

        • That is as preposterous as Jim Fetzer saying, “No-Planes, doesn’t mean no planes” when spouting his nonsense No-Planes Theory about the planes that hit the World Trade Towers on 9/11.

          You just keep ignoring the evidence, which is that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP described the entrance wound in the back of the head as “occipital,” in spite of putting it explicitly in parietal bone.

          As Grossman said:

          But speaking to the occipital question, Grossman [one of the Parkland doctors and] a neurosurgeon, suggested that part of the confusion surrounding the location of the head wound could be the result of the imprecision with which the term “occipital” is used. While the occiput refers specifically to a bone in the lower back section of the head, Grossman said many doctors loosely use the term to refer to “the back fifth of the head . . . there is this ambiguity about what constitutes the occipital and parietal area . . . It’s all very imprecise.” (Boston Sunday Globe, June 21, 1981.)

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm

          • “there is this ambiguity about what constitutes the occipital and parietal area . . . It’s all very imprecise.” (Boston Sunday Globe, June 21, 1981.)”~McAdams

            There is absolutely no ambiguity about which is occipital bone and which is parietal bone in the human scull. It should be clear to any pathologist that the junction between the two bones would be the “area” of the occipital-parietal.
            The occipital has a sharp ‘widows peak’ shape that protrudes upward as it meets the parietal.
            If an ‘area’, to either side of this is referred to as occipital-parietal, there may be some cause for disagreement among some pathologists. But the bones themselves are distinct.
            \\][//

          • There is absolutely no ambiguity about which is occipital bone and which is parietal bone in the human scull.

            The issue is “occipital area.”

            Your position is at odds with Grossman, the Clark Panel, and the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel.

          • We can speak to the whole issue of whether the ‘entrance wound’ can be identified by the ‘beveling’ as asserted by Humes.
            He had a partial tangential – oval shaped bullet hole in the occiput that he claims is indicative of a wound of entry.

            Beveling

            “Bullets traveling through bone create marginal conical shaped fractures adjacent to the entry or exit site. The conical beveling characteristically appears as a symmetrical chipping out of bone forming an indentation surrounding the entry or exit point on the opposite side of impact. The small end of the cone touches the interior or exterior bone table from which the bullet entered. Tangential gunshot wounds to the head create elliptically shaped defects containing both internal and external beveling (Levy, 2012).

            Some wounds present both internal and external beveling. Researchers attribute this pseudo-beveling in high velocity distance shots to the transference of kinetic energy to the skull as dislodged chips flaking off entry wound edges, producing the effect of beveling. Without careful examination, misinterpretation of an entrance wound as an exit wound is possible in all types of entries (Quatrehomme, 1998, Coe, 1981; Prahlow, 2010; Adams, 2010).

            Based upon current forensic research, it appears beveling cannot provide conclusive evidence of projectile direction. Incorrect assessment of direction can occur with tangential entries or exits, mistaken orientation, insufficient beveling, or the failure to recognize external beveling on entry wounds.”~Sherry Fiester, CSI
            \\][//

  17. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Disregard everything Dr. McClelland ever said about JFK’s head wound except for the fact he did not agree with the Back of Head autopsy photo.

    He was troubled by this photo, as he believed the scalp had been stretched back over a large gaping wound in the back of JFK’s head; effectively concealing it.

    This fact alone proves we are the victims of a conspiracy to hide the true nature of JFK’s wounds, and the true location of his killers.

    • Photon says:

      Strike everything after “JFK’s head wound”.
      After 50 years of CT obfuscation about McClelland’s perceived observations about the head wound, his original, written statement at Parkland only describes the wound AS HE WAS TOLD BY JENKINS-and incorrectly at that.
      As I have previously stated McClelland’s head wound descriptions were impossible to have been seen without moving the head. It is simple anatomy, the famous back of the head ” blow-out ” drawing presents a wound that was invisible to McClelland as he admittedly never moved the head.
      His Warren testimony months later about the head wound probably owes more to the post ER discussion among the participating physicians than to any direct observation of the head wound by himself. If he was so intimately involved in examining the head wound he could have described accurately in his statement the massive exit wound noted by the autopsy team, a wound with enough bone missing to lead the lead pathologist to conclude that a craniotomy had been done to the head. But immediately after the resusitative effort McClelland only mentioned that JFK had a bullet hole in the left temple.
      The only rational conclusion is that McClelland never actually examined the head wound, was unaware of its actual magnitude and did not know that it was a fatal wound until Jenkins informed the others.
      Far from being an unimpeachable witness, the Parkland note proves that at least in regards to the head wound Dr. McClelland didn’t even trust his own limited observations. And 50 years of CT claims about the head wound specifics based on McClelland’s statements go down the drain.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Photon

        Unless one is of middle European descent, would you not say the shape of the human skull is somewhat rounded? Would a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK’s head not likely be midway from the centre of the back of his skull to his right ear? As this would be a curved surface, the part of the rear of the skull would not be lying flat on the cart but, rather, be up off of the cart a good inch or more.

        Also, who is to say that JFK’s head remained absolutely and rigidly immobile the whole time they were attempting to save his life? As he was not suspected of having a spinal injury, no one was attempting to hold his head and neck immobile to maintain C-spine control. For all we know, JFK’s head moved a great deal from side to side during this time, affording the doctors beside his head a perfect view of the large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK’s head.

    • pat speer says:

      Does it? The latter-day recollections of one guy whose even more latter-day recollections you believe should be disregarded is proof of a conspiracy?

      If you ask 20 men what color underwear they’re wearing you could very well find that half of them would be wrong. I suppose that’s proof of a conspiracy as well…

    • ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64,

      McClelland described the head wound as, “…I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the *right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered…so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its *right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out….”

      (WC–V6:33) Later he said, “…unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy’s life) were of no avail.” (Emphasis added throughout) (WC–V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, “…massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss.” (WC–V6:34)
      \\][//

      • Tom S. says:

        Willy, you’ve posted several quotes today with no supporting links. You must be getting the quotes from somewhere. I need your support and the support of every other commenter
        in the consistent presentation of supporting links in submitted comments. I’m going to keep reminding Photon, for example, that he includes no links in his comments.
        Jeff explains that comments have a greater chance of appearing in these discussions if they include links. That must mean that comments stand less of a chance of appearing
        if they do not include links, preferably to respected, third party website or web pages found on the internet.

  18. Excerpt: Dr Humes ARRB Testimony
    (The doctor starts to get testy p.136/137)

    Q. Jerrimy Gunn — A. Dr. Humes
    . . .
    Q. So there were, then, two sorts of documents that were burned: one, the draft notes, and, two, a draft report?

    A. Right.

    Q. Is that correct?

    A. That’s right. So that the only thing remaining was the one that you have.

    Q. Why did you burn the draft report as opposed to the draft notes?

    A. I don’t recall. I don’t know. There was no reason–see, we’re splitting hairs here, and I’ll tell you, it’s getting to me a little bit, as you may be able to detect. The only thing I wanted to finish to hand over to whomever, in this case Admiral Burkley, was my completed version.

    Q. Well, the concern, of course, is if there is a record related to the autopsy that is destroyed, we’re interested in finding out what the exact circumstances–

    A. I’ve told you what the circumstances were. I used it only as an aide-memoir to do what I was doing and then destroyed it. Is that hard to understand?
    […]

    Q. When I first asked the question, you explained that the reason that you had destroyed it was that it had the blood of the President on it.

    A. Right.

    Q. The draft report, of course, would not have had the blood of–

    A. Well, it may have had errors in spelling or I don’t know what was the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that. I don’t know. I can’t recall. I absolutely can’t recall, and I apologize for that. But that’s the way the cookie crumbles. I didn’t want anything to remain that some squirrel would grab on and make whatever use that they might. Now, whether you felt that was reasonable or not, I don’t know. But it doesn’t make any difference because that was my decision and mine alone. Nobody else’s.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I am suspicious. I think Humes is hiding something. I think his last nervous response indicates others “helped” Humes to make those decisions.

    I will get to some more of this testimony later (after McAdams huffs and puffs over, ‘how could this be interpreted as sinister’)… grin
    \\][//

    • Bogman says:

      I never doubted that Humes destroyed the notes as ordered.

      He was a military man, after all, and no way he makes that momentous decision without direction from someone at a higher level.

    • Photon says:

      The photos of McClelland holding his clothing stained with JFK’s blood demonstrates exactly why Humes destroyed his notes. Why of all of the Parkland doctors is McClelland the only one that we know of to keep a highly valuable souvenir containing JFK’s blood? Even Mrs. Connolly had the Governor’s clothes laundered.
      Why haven’t Dr. McClelland’s CT fans asked about this ethical lapse from the ” unimpeachable ” witness?
      Doctors aren’t supposed to collect the blood or tissue of their patients for personal reasons. The unbelievable photos of Dr. McClelland holding an item that should never have been collected, or at least made public should prompt questions about his motivation for publicity, a stand that has not been duplicated by other Parkland MDs.

      • Jordan says:

        According to Dr. Humes, “that’s the way the cookie crumblies.”, I guess. hymmv….

      • You know what? And I hesitate to row in with you, photon given how obstinate you are when confronted with new data, but it has struck me that McClelland was highly unethical when he presented that artifact in public; it’s one thing to hold in private something that is very unique to one’s own experience, but entirely another to present it in public, regardless of the rationale. One would hope that McClelland was not afforded an infomercial. Did his clothing advance the investigation? I think not. We may live in a profane world, but aren’t there some things that remain sacrosanct; I’m not talking about Kennedy’s blood, I’m speaking to the physician’s code.

        • Photon says:

          You speak of a Physician’s code. There is actually a legal responsibility to maintain patient confidentiality, even after death. It is one thing to discuss the legal results of a mandated autopsy, but an entirely different matter concerning actual treatment of a patient by his physician. For that reason ( despite the historical situation) you have seen a near universal reluctance of the ER staff to discuss JFK’s wounds or treatment aside from official reports-except for McClelland (and the odious Crenshaw, who admitted that his ghost writer embellished his role and made several claims in his book without substantiation). Within 25 years of the assassination McClelland took a contrary path in regards to the head wound and was eagerly sought out by CTers across the board-and because the other ER physicians were reluctant to violate that code of confidentiality his claims festered in the CT community without contradiction, spawning a whole industry based on something that never existed-McClelland’s close examination of the head. His 22 November note confirms that his initial interpretation of the head wound was based on the observation of somebody else.
          His blood-stained souvenir exonerates Humes actions in destroying his notes better that anything I or anybody else could state. McClelland EXACTLY proves that Humes was very correct in assuming that his bloodstained notes could become a macabre item in somebody’s collection.McClelland apparently never held to that standard of honor.

        • MALCOLM PERRY, MD: In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, “A large wound of the right posterior cranium…” (WC–V17:6–CE#392) Describing Kennedy’s appearance to the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, “Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium….” (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: “…I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue…” (WC–V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA’s Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that “Dr. Perry… believed the head wound was located on the “occipital parietal” (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing…” (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: “I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen…” (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.

          RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician at Parkland Hospital. Under oath he told the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter, “…he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head… There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood.” (WC-V6:53-54) A few minutes later he described “what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull”. (Emphasis added throughout) (WC-V6:56)

          GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland told the Warren Commission under oath, “The back of the right occipital
          parietal portion of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding.” (WC-V6:65.) He later opined, “I assume the right occipital parietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head…”. (WC-V6:67)

          PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician at Parkland described the head wound to the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter under oath as, “…I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput…It seemed to me that in the right occipital parietal area that there was a large defect.” (WC-V6:71)

          http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
          \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Okay, Photon, McClelland was a bad person for hanging on to a bloody shirt.

        Dry your tears and get over it, princess.

        The fact remains that McClelland believed there was a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK’s head, and he also believed this wound was concealed by a flap of scalp in the Back of Head autopsy photo.

  19. He was troubled by this photo, as he believed the scalp had been stretched back over a large gaping wound in the back of JFK’s head; effectively concealing it.

    But then he looked at the entire set, and decided there was nothing sinister about the scalp being held up in one photo, and that the entire set showed the wound he remembered.

    See what I posted from Carter above.

    Disregard everything Dr. McClelland ever said about JFK’s head wound except for the fact he did not agree with the Back of Head autopsy photo.

    Why would you want to disregard a lot of evidence about what McClelland believed? Disregarding evidence that’s inconvenient is not the path to sound historical inquiry.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      McClelland might have believed there was nothing sinister about the scalp being pulled back over the back of the head, but he also believed that pulled over scalp was concealing a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK’s head.

    • Are you addressing your comment of March 21, 2016 at 10:22 am to me “professor”? If so why?

      I also will note that you have no comment on the 14 Parkland Hospital witnesses placing their hands indicating where the avulsive wound to the back of JFK’s head was. All of these doctors were “mixed up”? They didn’t know back from front? What do YOU think McAdams? That they “weren’t with the program”? Didn’t get the script in time? Or they were just plain “goofy”?
      \\][//

      • Do you think the autopsy photos and x-rays were forged?

        • “Do you think the autopsy photos and x-rays were forged?”`McAdams

          I think you are avoiding the question I asked you about all of the Parkland witnesses with their hands placed on the rear of their heads indicating where the wound to Kennedy’s head was.

          You want to play patty-cake McAdams? If you answer my question, maybe, just maybe I will answer yours. Because you see McAdams, I really don’t give much of a damn what you think.
          \\][//

          • In the first place, I hope you understand that the photos Groden shows you are selected to show what Groden wants you to believe.

            Carrico, for example, drew the wound for the Boston Globe.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF

            Doris Nelson showed a LIFE photographer where it was:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nelson.jpg

            Grossman put the large defect over the right ear:

            http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/MD185-2.JPG

            Lipsey put the wound low, but above the right ear:

            http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/lipsey.gif

            But you can’t evade honestly saying whether you think the photos are forged.

            If they are not, they are the best evidence as to the head wound.

            You can’t have it both ways.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            Willie,

            Asst. professor McAdams says you can’t have it both ways. But apparently he can.

            He suggests you look at an image Neurosurgeon Robert Grossman prepared for the Assn Review Board. It shows a wound on the right side of JFK’s skull.

            What the “good” professor doesn’t show you is the second, and alomst as large, wound Dr. Grossman prepared for the ARRB.

            As Paul Seaton put it, “ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD:”He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput, far too large for a bullet entry wound…”.

            ” the second was a larger wound in the right parietal region (which he characterized as an
            exit wound) that was not an open hole in the cranium, but rather a plate of bone, about 6 cm in longest dimension, lifted up from the inside, which could really only be seen when Dr. Clark lifted up some of the
            President’s hair” ( Grossman ARRB interview)
            http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#grossman

            This is just another, typical example of the asst. professor’s selective presentation of evidence.

            Gary

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            Willie,

            Don’t get bamboozled by the asst. professor’s selective presentation of evidence.

            Here’s Paul Seaton on James Carrico, with a photo and a quote:http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#grossman

            CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD: “The (skull) wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura.” (6H6)

            You’ll find the same “unmassaged” quote in my compilation of witness statements: http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

            Gary

          • Have no fear Dr Agular,

            I understand the disingenuous nature of McAdams’ purposes here.

            I had a comment that remains unpublished just before your last two, that makes this very clear.
            . . .

            “Dr Boswell – one of the autopsy doctors – maintains that he was lifting such a flap over the back of the head in the photo below.”:

            http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/piks/boh.jpg

            Thank you Gary, for the link to the Paul Seaton page.
            \\][//

          • As Paul Seaton put it, “ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD:”He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput, far too large for a bullet entry wound…”.

            Here is the parietal wound he described:

            http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/MD185-2.JPG

            And the much smaller occipital wound:

            http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/MD185-3.JPG

            This is just another, typical example of the asst. professor’s selective presentation of evidence.

            Irony alert!

            And this is the Gary Aguilar who touts testimony that he says is at odds with the autopsy photos and x-rays, but won’t honestly say he thinks those are faked.

          • “And the much smaller occipital wound”~McAdams

            And where is this occipital wound in the X-Rays and photographs?
            \\][//

          • By the way, I would estimate this “much smaller wound” in the occipital to be about the size of a half dollar. That is certainly smaller than the wound Grossman indicates in the parietal (side view), but it is a substantial wound nevertheless.
            \\][//

          • “In the first place, I hope you understand that the photos Groden shows you are selected to show what Groden wants you to believe.”~McAdams

            What does Groden have to do with it “professor”?

            Do you think Groden was able to pose the doctors for those photos, and they all just simply went along with it?

            Groden didn’t even take the photos McAdams, he simply compiled them.
            \\][//

          • And where is this occipital wound in the X-Rays and photographs?

            It’s not there, since there was no such wound.

            Have you not caught on by now that witness testimony is fallible?

          • What does Groden have to do with it “professor”?

            Do you think Groden was able to pose the doctors for those photos, and they all just simply went along with it?

            Groden chose the photos to show you.

          • “Professor” McAdams,

            I REALLY don’t want to insult you, but I am going to have to dismiss your commentary of the 23rd (yesterday) as utter balderdash.
            \\][//

        • “Have you not caught on by now that witness testimony is fallible?”~John McAdams on March 23, 2016 at 10:04 pm

          As a general statement McAdams’ statement above is nonsense; ALL testimony is “witness testimony”. ALL’reports’ are “witness testimony”, and ALL testimony is from one degree or another simply “opinion”.

          The sentence I quote above by “professor” McAdams concerns the testimony of the Parkland Doctors who gave testimony that McAdams does not like. McAdams prefers the testimony of OTHER DOCTORS who agree with his prefab biases, such as the autopsists Humes and Boswell. Their testimony is not fallible because they tell the story that McAdams wants to hear.

          With all the controversy in this case, with all the experts on every side of the argument across the entire spectrum of these questions, let us not fool ourselves in that one side is arguing the “Facts”, and the other is arguing simple “Opinions”; when it is in fact OUR OWN OPINIONS that choose which expert speaks to the facts and which expert is merely stating an opinion.

          We can only appeal to the reason of others to either agree or disagree with our own opinion. Of course I feel that there are more and less reasonable view of data and facts. I admit they are based on my own opinions, and I defend those opinions with the best arguments I can. And this is an example of one of my opinions. And each reader is invited to either agree or disagree with my opinion here, either in part or in whole.

          But if anyone actually thinks there will be a final resolution, agreement, or consensus on these matters that everyone accepts, they are kidding themselves.
          \\][//

          • The Damage to the Back of President Kennedy’s Head
            Article by Robert Harris
            . . . .

            A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that.

            Q. Dr. Boswell, I’m sorry to jump in here, but I just want to make sure that the record is going to be clear here. And we can come back to this, and I want you to explain it the best you can. But would it be fair to say first that the diagram that we’re talking about is a drawing of the skull of President Kennedy as seen from the top? Would that be fair?

            A. Yes.

            MR. GUNN: I’d like to ask the reporter if he could read back Dr. Boswell’s last answer with regard to the transiting and the direction. When you hear this, I would like you to think if this is what you meant to say. I may have heard it differently from what you said, and I just want to make sure we’re all on the same page.

            [The pertinent portion of the record, as recorded, was read by the reporter.]

            BY MR. GUNN:

            Q. Dr. Boswell, you’ve just had an opportunity to hear your prior answer read back. Was it correct that there was a wound that went from the left posterior to the right anterior? Is that correct?

            A. Yes.

            Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?

            A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area…

            In this part of the interview, Boswell states that he was the one whose hand we see in the photo, pulling the scalp up, and toward the forehead:
            http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage_files/2.jpg

            http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html

            \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      John

      You are still avoiding the main issue regarding McClelland.

      He believed the Back of Head autopsy photo was taken in such a manner as to conceal a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK’s head.

      • Quit saying I’ve “avoided the issue” when I answered, and you just didn’t like my answer.

        The wound was in parietal bone, mostly posterior.

        The Back of the Head Photo did conceal the wound, since an autopsist was holding the scalp up to show the entrance defect.

        The entire set shows the wound. McClelland says the photos show the wound he saw.

        http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/

        It’s dishonest to claim I “avoided” an issue when I simply didn’t give you the answer you wanted.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          From Dr. Kemp Clark’s medical report:

          “Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted.”

          “There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. 1500 cc. of blood were estimated on the drapes and floor of the Emergency Operating Room. There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound.”

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm

          How could the cerebellum (cerebellar tissue) be damaged if the wound was as high as you claim?

          http://www.neuroskills.com/images/cerebellum11.jpg

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            P.S.

            It is also dishonest to repeatedly misquote witnesses, John.

          • It wasn’t damaged. The doctors thought they saw cerebellum. But they were wrong.

            That’s what the photos and x-rays show.

            Did you ever ‘fess up and admit you think them to be faked?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            John McAdams

            I just love how the Lone Nuts deal with every situation they find a bit difficult in the JFK murder case.

            If all else fails, the eyewitnesses are simply mistaken and just thought they saw what they saw.

            Pathetic. No, I’m wrong. This goes way beyond pathetic. I believe the word “desperate” comes to mind.

            Have you ever had the opportunity to view a human brain, John? I suppose you likely have, but I imagine the opportunity was wasted on you. Anyways, you likely know as well as I do the vast difference between the two main parts of the human brain; the much larger cerebrum and the smaller cerebellum. This photo well demonstrates this difference with the smaller more finely textured cerebellum on the lower right and the larger and more coarsely textured cerebrum making up the rest of the brain.

            https://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/c2a7384f-86a9-45d6-bccf-9f8a9868a16c/14073f4a-9543-432b-b37d-b292dab30d13image13.jpeg

            Dr. Kemp Clark was the Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland Memorial Hospital. In case you don’t have your dictionary handy, John, that means he operated on brains for a living. What do you think the chances are of him mistaking the cerebrum for the cerebellum? Especially in such an important case as the POTUS?

            Are the autopsy photos and x-rays fakes? Of course they are, simply because they contradict the evidence given by the medical professionals at Parkland Hospital.

          • Are the autopsy photos and x-rays fakes? Of course they are, simply because they contradict the evidence given by the medical professionals at Parkland Hospital.

            So how does one fake a stereo pair?

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt

          • If all else fails, the eyewitnesses are simply mistaken and just thought they saw what they saw.

            Pathetic. No, I’m wrong. This goes way beyond pathetic. I believe the word “desperate” comes to mind.

            You are just blowing off the social science on witness testimony.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zaid.htm

            And of course, anybody who simply looks at the totality of testimony in this case should know how fallible witness testimony is:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/witnesses.htm

          • Photon says:

            Bob, is your picture supposed to be a joke? It is a MODEL, not the real thing! Do you actually think that bloody, macerated tissue on the surgical drapes taken out of anatomical context would be easy to identify?
            Clark later said that he was mistaken about seeing cerebellum; I doubt that Jenkins or McClelland had seen a cerebellum since neuroanatomy in Medical School.
            They ASSUMED that cerebellar tissue was on the drapes because of the magnitude of the head wound. It wasn’t the only error that they made.

          • Photon says:

            Bob, have eve seen a human cerebellum?
            How about a human cerebrum?
            How about a bullet wound in a human being?
            Your resorting to high school science models and claiming that they are an accurate representation of what the various parts of the brain look like in a living or recently deceased subject is ok for a school science fair but is almost comical when discussing serious anatomic issues and forensic medical science. Your constant resorting to two-dimentional pictures and misleading illustrations only makes your layman’s ignorance of gross anatomy more evident to those who have actually dissected the human body and participated in autopsies.Let me assure you that the fixed brain at sectioning is very different than the same organ in life or even immediately after death. You do not seem to understand that concept. There is more to forensic pathological truth than a lumberjack’s hobby.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Photon

            You just cannot admit to the vast difference in cerebral and cerebellar tissue, can you?

            Perhaps you could share with us precisely where and when Dr. Clark admitted he was mistaken about seeing part of the cerebellum protruding from the wound, and exactly what new evidence led him to this late conclusion.

          • Photon says:

            Sure Bob. Just as soon as you post a source for your claims up and down the blogosphere that Mauser never put their brand name on their weapons, or why you thought that JFK had an open casket.

        • Mr Prudhomme,

          In either one of the Manchester books or;
          ‘The Day Kennedy Was Shot’ by Jim Bishop, maybe both..

          There is mention of an open casket ceremony for close family and some friend of JFK.
          (Not public)

          I recall reading that years ago. In that section Jackie turns to Bobby and enigmatically says, “That’s not Jack,” after coming down from the staging area the coffin was on.

          I have no idea of what page it is on, and am not even certain which book. But I KNOW I did read that.
          ================================================

          “It is correct that there was no public viewing of John F. Kennedy remains. But close family members made use of the opportunity to take a final look at his embalmed body in the casket. Biographer William Manchester and other experts unanimously report that Jackie Kennedy reacted with the words “Oh no, that’s not Jack” when she saw him in his casket. Even though this might be, to a certain degree, just a normal psychological expression of denial after the grievous lost, it probably was also a reaction to the fact that her husband’s face had been severely wounded (mutilated mainly on the back of it) and undergone several hours of “restoration work” by the embalmers of the Gawler funeral home.”~Kim
          https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070126195127AAPsoaz

          \\][//

  20. Humes HRRB testimony pages 141 & 142:

    Q. Jerrimy Gunn – A. Dr Humes
    . . .
    Q. You’re welcome to read as much as you would prefer.

    A. Whatever.

    Q. It’s just I have a question for you on the first sentence only.

    A. Okay.

    Q. You see that Dr. Burkley identifies the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Do you see that?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Was that correct?

    A. I don’t know. I didn’t measure from which vertebra it was. It’s sometimes hard to decide which vertebra, to tell you the truth, by palpation. Maybe you can do it accurately because the first and second–did I say the third? Oh, he says third thoracic. I think that’s much lower than it actually was. I think it’s much lower than it actually–you have seven cervical vertebrae. I don’t know. I mean, he’s got a right to say anything he wants, but I never saw it before, and I don’t have an opinion about it.”
    . . .
    This is one of the reasons that it is critical to have the victim’s clothing during the autopsy. Humes never saw the shirt and coat Kennedy was wearing when he was killed.
    Again; asserting that it is mere coincidence that the back wound is clearly at T-3 in the autopsy photo, that the bullet holes in both the shirt and coat were at the same place, that the point on Boswell’s face sheet show the spot at T-3, that special agent Sibert claimed it was lower on the back, is preposterous.

    Humes claims that measuring from the mastoid process is reliable for such a measurement. However all you have to do is lean your head to the side and lift your shoulder to see that the distance can change dramatically.

    Any pathologist should be able to tell where the thoracic vertebrae are and count them as landmarks on the back. C-7 & T-1 are right at the point where the head bends to look up or down. In autopsy photo, the deep crease in Kennedy’s neck is where the C-7 — T-1 junction is, the wound is clearly several inches lower than that.
    \\][//

    • I would like to point out something curious; there are no teeth shown in the JFK skull X-ray. It is curious for several reasons, the first being that teeth are the main identifying objects in a skull.

      Second is the fact that it is claimed that the skull was X-rayed at the beginning of the autopsy before any procedures had taken place on the body. This is doubly strange in that there is no trace of the mandible connecting to the skull in these X-rays.

      What do these points mean? I will leave it to the forum to contemplate.
      \\][//

      • pat speer says:

        The HSCA dealt with this, Willy. They cut the jaws and teeth off the published x-rays because they thought they would make the x-rays look too much like Kennedy. (That’s what they said anyhow.) They then published the part of the x-rays showing the teeth in the part of the report arguing for the authenticity of the x-rays. I added these images to this slide. http://www.patspeer.com/dental.jpg

        • “They cut the jaws and teeth off the published x-rays because they thought they would make the x-rays look too much like Kennedy.”~pat speer

          Simply ludicrous!! I think they cut to teeth off because it would reveal it wasn’t Kennedy’s skull at all.
          You cannot remove the mandible from an X-ray if the mandible is actually attached to the skull…
          In my opinion this was a raw skull removed from a cadaver. It just may have been JD Tippit’s skull worked over by a sledge hammer.

          I kid thee not.
          \\][//

          • pat speer says:

            C’mon, Willy. Even David Mantik agrees that the x-rays are Kennedy’s x-rays. He thinks some white patches have been added to the x-rays, but feels quite certain they are Kennedy’s x-rays. Now, why does he think this? 1) The HSCA concluded that the sinuses on the post-mortem x-rays matched those on the pre-mortem x-rays. And Mantik agress. 2) He’s been to the Archives and seen the original x-rays, complete with the teeth. In sum, then, even those suspecting there’s been hanky-panky with the medical evidence, e.g. Mantik, Aguilar, Robertson, Wecht, have come to accept that the x-rays in the archives and published by the HSCA are those of Kennedy. Well, I, for one, see no reason to disagree with them on this.

            The x-rays, after all, prove there was two head shots, and thus more than one shooter.

          • “The x-rays, after all, prove there was two head shots, and thus more than one shooter.”~pat speer

            I do not accept the two shots to Kennedy’s head scenario Pat.

            I think there was one shot from the southwest end of Dealey Plaza on a knoll above Commerce St. just at the mouth of the Triple Underpass. The area just in front of the Dallas PO parking-lot.

            See, the trajectory cone created through the technique of photogrammetry by CSI Sherry Fiester:

            https://enemyofthetruth.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/dealey3a.jpg?w=700
            . . .
            I do not hold firmly to the proposition that the skull is someone else’s Pat. It was a hypothetical that I thought I would throw out here. I am not taking anyone’s word for anything however, and maintain there is still that possibility.

            There are quite a few things with which I disagree with Mantik. So I do not take him at his word.
            . . .
            A question remains unanswered by you here. Which direction do you think the shot[s] that hit Kennedy in the head come from?
            \\][//

          • Simply ludicrous!! I think they cut to teeth off because it would reveal it wasn’t Kennedy’s skull at all.

            A forensic odontologist examined the two entire lateral x-rays, and compared them to premortem x-rays known to be of JFK, and found that the dentition matched.

            The x-rays were of JFK.

            You folks really need to read the HSCA authentication.

            It’s no accident you pay no attention to anything but witness testimony.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          I’m happy for you that you can swallow this story, Pat. Sounds like more HSCA white wash to me.

          • “It’s no accident you pay no attention to anything but witness testimony.”

            And the forensic odontologist you refer to is not ‘witness testimony’?

            Is Dr Boswell’s testimony valid “professor”?

            “The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area. And what I meant was that the wound in the scalp could be closed from side to side so that it didn’t appear that there was any scalp actually–scalp missing.”~Dr Boswell

            Pages 59 & 60 – ARRB DEPOSITION OF DR. J THORNTON BOSWELL, 2/26/96
            BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD
            \\][//

    • Gunn. Dr. Boswell, you’ve just had an opportunity to hear your prior answer read back. Was it correct that there was a wound that went from the left posterior to the right anterior? Is that correct?

      Boswell. Yes.

      Gunn. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?

      >**Boswell. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area. And what I meant was that the wound in the scalp could be closed from side to side so that it didn’t appear that there was any scalp actually–scalp missing.**<

      Gunn. Okay. If you could–when you say the entrance wound, if you could give approximately the point of where that entrance wound is with reference to the diagram in Exhibit 2, and maybe just take as some sort of a reference point the 4 that is down at the bottom of that diagram. Was the entrance wound to the left or to the right of below where that 4 is? Do you see what I'm referring to?

      Boswell. Yes. It would have to be a little bit to the right of where the 4 is and farther back than the 4.

      Pages 59 & 60 – ARRB DEPOSITION OF DR. J THORNTON BOSWELL, 2/26/96
      BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
      \\][//

  21. theNewDanger says:

    Why wasn’t a back of head photo taken for details of the rear flap with JFK’s head out of the stirrup without Boswell holding that specific point in place? All he had to do was support the left side of the head. The right flap was already pulled up and left alone. Why not the rear flap?

    • theNewDanger,

      It is my opinion that from the moment JFK’s body was removed from Parkland Hospital, a medical cover-up was assured.

      The so-called “autopsy” at Bethesda was beyond incompetent, it was criminal negligence__a complete fraud. This can only indicate one thing: CONSPIRACY.
      \\][//

  22. Milyn says:

    There is a more recent interview with Bill Newman. The interviewer asked him if there was one question he could have answered about JFK’s murder- what would it be?

    His reply was almost verbatim – “They say the bullet went in the back of his head and came out the front. I saw just the opposite- and would like to know the truth.”

    (Tom S. notes: Milyn, on March 18, you submitted a comment authored by “uu”. )

  23. “In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful.

    All violence consists in some people forcing others, under threat of suffering or death, to do what they do not want to do.”~Leo Tolstoy
    \\][//

  24. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Pat Speer

    In twenty-five words or less, please tell us from which direction the bullet came that struck the fatal blow on JFK’s head, and at what point on JFK’s head that bullet impacted.

  25. Bob,

    I think that Pat already answered that question in a comment to me above at:
    pat speer — March 21, 2016 at 8:04 pm

    He said that the bullet hit the right temple and blew out the rear of the head. But you can read and interpret it as you will.
    \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Willy

      Is this the post you are referring to?

      “This is my point precisely, with but one exception. No entrance wound to the right temple was noted at Parkland, or even discussed. It follows then, like night from day, that the temple wound described by McClelland was the large gaping wound he’d observed…on the right temple…precisely where it was observed by Bill Newman in the plaza before him, and by Humes and Stringer that night.”

      I don’t think Pat is telling us there was an entrance wound in the right temple, and a blowout in the rear, unless you interpret the words “…that the temple wound described by McClelland was the large gaping wound he’d observed…on the right temple….” somewhat differently than I do.

      • Let Pat Speer clear this up for us Bob. I think that McClelland meant to say “right temporal wound”, Pat agrees there. As for the distinction of that being a wound of entrance, and that there was a large blowout in the occipital-parietal is something Pat will have to tell you.

        However McClelland clearly thought there was that large blowout in the rear, as per his testimony to the WC, as well as the photo showing him placing his hand there.

        “…I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the *right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered…so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its *right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out….”~McClelland (WC–V6:33)
        \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Willy

          Can you not read what Pat posted? He is telling us that he interprets McClelland’s medical report as saying there was a rear entrance wound and a large blowout in JFK’s right temple.

          Capiche?

          • “Capiche?”~Bob Prudhomme

            As Pat has not come out and said that specifically, I will wait to hear from him to come to that conclusion.

            If that is his conclusion, I disagree with it strongly. Does this satisfy you Bob?
            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Yes, but I am a little concerned about your reading comprehension skills. I cannot imagine how Pat Speer could more strongly state he believes in a frontal blowout.

          • pat speer says:

            No, Bob, that’s not what I wrote, or think. But you’re pretty close.

            My “theory”, if you will, is no secret. I discuss it in detail on my website. I have also discussed it at a number of conferences, and in hundreds of posts online. It’s really pretty simple. It’s quite clear from any honest and thorough study of the medical evidence, IMO, that the large head wound was a tangential wound of entrance and exit, or gutter wound, precisely as described by Dr. Clark after studying the wound. There is a tutorial explaining why this is at patspeer.com.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Pat

            Okay, but was the bullet coming from behind JFK, or did it originate from in front of JFK?

            Also, I hope you realize that a tangent “guttering” wound, by its very nature, must stay on the surface of the skull. If the bullet penetrates the skull bone and enters the inner area of the cranium, it can hardly be called a tangential “guttering” wound any longer.

          • Well Pat, at least that is an original take on the medical evidence.
            I do not agree with you, but I have no interest in debating your take on this.
            \\][//

          • pat speer says:

            There is a quick slideshow on my website entitled “A New Perspective”. It is available on this page: http://www.patspeer.com/

            It shows how the science is quite clear that the large head wound was a tangential wound. And yes, that’s the right term for it, Bob. I cite numerous sources for this in Chapter 16b. http://www.patspeer.com/chapter16b%3Adigginginthedirt

            Highly recommended reading. And highly influential. A number of famous researchers now claim the large head wound was a tangential wound. It’s not a coincidence.

          • Pat,

            I am sorry if I am anxious, and I do not want to hand wave what has obviously been a great deal of effort that you have put into this. But I am not going to dig through this whole thing on your web page when you are right here to answer this simple question:

            Do you think the shot that hit Kennedy in the head was fired from behind?

            I am asking because my research shows a shot from the front that struck Kennedy in the temple.

            Thank you, \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Pat

            All well and good. However, can you not just answer a simple question? Where do you believe the fatal head shot came from, and where do you believe it impacted JFK’s skull?

  26. Bob Prudhomme says:

    “…..precisely as described by Dr. Clark after studying the wound.”

    Okay, Pat, let’s see what Dr. Kemp Clark had to say about the head wound after studying it, accepting, of course, the only chance he had to study the head wound was in Trauma Room One on 22/11/63.

    From the summary to the Medical Reports:

    “There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. 1500 cc. of blood were estimated on the drapes and floor of the Emergency Operating Room. There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound.”

    From his medical report:

    “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.”

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm

    From his Warren Commission testimony:

    “Dr. CLARK – The President was lying on his back on the emergency cart. Dr. Perry was performing a tracheotomy. There were chest tubes being inserted. Dr. Jenkins was assisting the President’s respirations through a tube in his trachea. Dr. Jones and Dr. Carrico were administering fluids and blood intravenously. The President was making a few spasmodic respiratory efforts. I assisted. in withdrawing the endotracheal tube from the throat as Dr. Perry was then ready to insert the tracheotomy tube . I then examined the President briefly.
    My findings showed his pupils were widely dilated, did not react to light, and his eyes were deviated outward with a slight skew deviation.
    I then examined the wound in the back of the President’s head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the floor, and the clothing of some of the people present. I would estimate 1,500 cc. of blood being present.”

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/clark_w.htm

    Tell me, Pat, maybe missed it but, at what point does Dr. Kemp Clark begin discussing a tangential “guttering” wound that involves the temporal bone on the rght side of JFK’s head?

  27. Bob Prudhomme says:

    From John McAdams:

    “And of course, anybody who simply looks at the totality of testimony in this case should know how fallible witness testimony is:

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/witnesses.htm

    I agree with you, John. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

    However, the other notable aspect of eyewitness testimony is just how greatly witnesses seeing the same event will differ with each other in their recollections.

    Therefore, what a great anomaly it is that so many of the medical staff at Parkland saw a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK’s head, PLUS cerebellar tissue protruding from that wound.

    Wouldn’t you agree that, following your own rules, they should have all seen something different?

    • You are assuming that “right rear” means what you want it to mean: an occipital blowout.

      But McClelland said it meant the wound we see in the autopsy photos.

      As for “cerebellar tissue:” Kennedy’s head had been blasted open. I don’t doubt that the doctors thought they saw cerebellar tissue, but they were not used to seeing a skull blown open like that.

      Most ER gunshot wounds are from handguns.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Why would Parkland doctors refer to the wound as occipital if it did not involve the occipital bone?

        Seriously, John, you might impress some of the people here, and likely everyone on that thing you call a forum but, anyone with any real medical knowledge at all is laughing at you and all of the government “experts” you continually refer us to.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          BTW, why not address the very odd phenomenon that every “mistaken” Parkland doctor that observed a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK’s head suffered an identical hallucination, contrary to your “laws” of witnessing that would have them seeing wounds all over JFK’s head?

          • Photon says:

            The only thing odd about their perceptions is the ignorance of the people who accept them without actually looking at how they came to them in the first place.If you review the Warren statements of several of the ER doctors it becomes apparent that most had a very limited view of the head wound and never really saw it to the extent that CTers are convinced that they did.The critical fact that Bob and so many CTers ignore or want to go away is that the principal doctors in the ER got together after they left they left the ER and discussed the case among themselves. They did this prior to writing their written statements – in part to try to generate a historical record, in part to contribute to the evidentiary needs of a potential murder trial , but mostly to discuss what they THOUGHT they saw. Complicating this was a very incomplete exam on a DOA patient that happened to be the President. As most were experienced in treating gunshot wounds they realized that the most accurate and legally binding evidence in regards to the specifics of a gunshot wound to the head wound be established by the postmortem examination , ie. the autopsy. Dr. Clark alluded to this in his Nov. 22 news conference . As such, it was never necessary to closely examine the head wound. And so most never did. As most of the posters on this blog have no comprehension of how limited the exam was during the approximately 18 minute resuscitative effort .

          • Photon says:

            The reality of the situation is that in discussing the resusitative effort the other ER docs appear to have deferred after discussion to Jenkins and Clark as to the placement of the head wound. Ergo, the uniformity of the ( wrong) placement of the head wound further back than it really was.
            The only one of the ER docs to resist accepting that the initial interpretations could be in error was McClelland-and his ARRB testimony confirms what I have posted-that his initial statement in regards to the head wound was based on what JENKINS TOLD HIM, not direct observation. After 50 years CT reliance on McClelland’s claims about the head wound the fans of that testimony have face a very unpleasant fact-that within four hours of the assassination McClelland was so unsure of the specifics of the head wound he regurgitated the conclusions of another doctor-and false conclusions at that. Folks, that’s the ball game as far as McClelland’s impression of the head wound goes. Everything that he has stated in regards to the head wounds can be seen for what it is -speculation based on second hand information, not the direct observation that a significant witness would have stated for posterity

          • Tom has offered documented proof that Dr Perry was leaned on to change his testimony about the entrance wound in JFK’s throat.

            Again we must consider MO, and Rule #406 concerning routine habits of individuals and organizations.

            The ‘Intelligence Community’ has a known history of such routine habits as intimidating witnesses, threatening with harm, actually causing harm.

            To think that Dr Perry alone was intimidated in such a way is unreasonable. Mostly such intimidation is “expected/feared” by such witnesses, this is why the usual routine habit of going along to get along, before such intimidation is even applied.

            Just the words, “You know what is expected of you in these circumstances…” can be enough of an intimidation to those who know “the rules of the game”.

            What bothers me is that there are those here who act as though this isn’t a self-evident reality for any adult in this pathological society. Of course I DO understand it is psychological denial.

            But it seems to me that the commentators here should be mature enough to at least grasp this conceptually.
            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/arrbpark.htm
            Dr Peters to the ARRB.

            “And then Dr. Jenkins said, boys, before you think about opening the chest, you’d better step up here and look at this brain. And so at that point I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked in the President’s head, and I reported to the Warren Commission that there was about a seven-centimeter hole in the occipitoparietal area that there was obviously quite a bit of brain missing. Some brain was hanging down in the wound, and I thought the cerebellum had been injured as well as the cerebral cortex. That’s what I said at the time.”

            According to this, it seems everyone got a pretty good look at the large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK’s head.

            You really think Jenkins would say “…you’d better step up here and look at this brain…” to the other doctors, without turning the head to show them the wound?

          • Photon says:

            I can’t believe that anybody at this date can even contemplate taking Jim Gochenaur’s claims seriously. So one ” graduate student” claimed that an intoxicated man told him that he had heard that an FBI agent tried to coerce Perry to change his statement? With zero corroboration ? From a self-admitted conspiracy buff? His claim was another one of those “factoids” pushed up and down conspiracy sites until it kind of petered out when serious investigators found out that this “graduate student” was actually an adult living with his parents in Waukesha. Tom S., you didn’t post what the HSCA actually thought of his claims nor why you take him seriously as a source.
            But what I find fascinating in the recent responses to my latest posts is how those responses are avoiding McClelland like the plague.

          • Tom S. says:

            Photon, on the surface, you attempted to impeach the testimonies of Gochenaur,
            but let’s examine what else you attempted and distracted. You “changed” the Secret Service
            agent, Elmer Moore, who Gochenaur made accusations against, to an FBI agent, and you failed
            to respond to the evidence I presented supporting the obstruction of the WC investigation by
            Secret Service chief Rowley. You accomplished all of this with an impressive economy of words.
            Your last two comments, taken together, give an illuminating impression of just who it is we
            find ourselves engaging at JFKfacts.org. Your manner and tone are formidable, indeed!

          • Photon says:

            Tom S., perhaps you should go to Harold Weisberg’s archives and review the correspondence that he had with Gochenaur, particularly his April 1971 letter calling him ” stupid”. You shouldn’t need a link for it.
            The correspondence reveals a CTer trying to make a name for himself in the “research community” because he had made contact with Moore and had brought up the JFK assassination with him. I think that as his stories he told became more ” interesting” he started to get cold feet when the likes of Weisberg started asking inconvenient questions about his claims. He virtually disappeared after the HSCA wrapped up.

          • Tom S. says:

            Photon,
            On page five of this 1976 transcript, former Secret Service agent Elmer W Moore is administered an
            oath and swears to testify truthfully.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1424&search=perry#relPageId=5
            Considering that two comments ago, I displayed and LINKED to
            evidence that SS chief Rowley had a copy of the transcript of Dr. Perry’s 22 November press statements, stamped by SS on 26 November on the last page I presented, and labeled Rowley copy on the first page I presented,
            (see- http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/dr-robert-mcclelland-a-story-he-feels-compelled-to-share/#comment-865622 )
            …what do you (all readers) make of this? Considering the evidence I presented, did Moore even answer the question put to him, under oath, let alone answer it truthfully? Please do not attempt to foist on us the notion that Rowley was unaware of the Perry/Kemp press transcript provided to the SS by the White House, or that Rowley did not share it
            with Moore, briefing him before Moore spoke one on one with Dr. Perry, because if you attempt it, it would be an affront to our sensibilities.:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1424&search=perry#relPageId=42

            Photon, your incuriousness, and agenda are fully on display here. And no factoids come from me,
            I’ve presented only from the record, with LINKS, which is more than I can say I’ve ever seen you do, here at JFKfacts.org .

          • “Your last two comments, taken together, give an illuminating impression of just who it is we
            find ourselves engaging at JFKfacts.org. Your manner and tone are formidable, indeed!”~Tom S.

            Of all the “F-words” to choose from Tom…grin

            I would choose others, such as ‘flamboyant’, ‘fabulistic’, ‘flagrantly flatulent’, ‘fumbling’, ‘formless’, ‘fibbing’, ‘flipped’, ‘flopped’, ‘false’, and ‘fraudulent’.

            Leading to 3 “S-words”; ‘spurious’, ‘scurrilous’, &’scandalous’.

            But I think a “C-word” defines best:

            ‘Cherrypicker’, in this instance meaning misframing and avoidance of many comments here. Including the words of Dr. Boswell, who in fact describes a wound in Kennedy’s head extending from the occipital forward to the frontal bone.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            The FBI agent’s name was Carver Gayton and if you read Gochenaur’s original claims about Hosty,Oswald and Oswald being an FBI informant they supposedly came from Gayton after he had been drinking. At that time Gayton was an ex-FBI agent, but Gochenaur claimed to Moore that Gayton was an active agent who was harassing him. Gochenaur made all sorts of claims as to what Gayton told him-they are all over your HSCA transcript of his telephone interview.
            And please post ANY evidence that the ” Moore pressured Perry” myth came from anybody but Gochenaur.Within 24 hours Perry was reluctant to make any more comments about his observations in the ER not because of any pressure from anybody else, but because he felt that the medical ignorance of the reporters at the Nov.22 conference led to misinterpretation of what he said, or perhaps what he meant to say. True or not, he felt that the Press wanted to tell a story that he felt was not accurate-and stated that in latter months. Wasn’t it a little late for Moore to influence Perry’s perceptions after the Nov. 22 conference?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            SSA Moore is covered in greater depth in Vince Palamara’s Survivors Guilt. Dr. Perry is not the only one he leaned on but I’ll leave that for another thread. He also told Gouchenaur “Kennedy was a traitor for giving things away to the Russians; that it was a shame people had to die, but maybe it was a good thing; that the Secret Service personnel HAD TO GO ALONG with the way the assassination was being investigated: “I did everything I was told, we all did everything we were told, or we’d get our heads cut off”.
            Moore said he was in San Francisco at the time of the assassination. He flew to Washington after it then went to Dallas a week later. I think it is important to note an “obvious observation”, that he was acting on instructions of his superiors when he leaned on Perry and others.
            Was the SS complicit in JFK’s assassination, involved in it through their actions prior to and inaction during it? I.E. some had foreknowledge and chose to or were ordered to relax security and/or not act. That’s still up for debate.
            Were they involved in the coverup?
            Between what Tom presented, Palamara presents and yes, even Moore (pun intended) it’s not a question but a Fact.

            12/18/63, St. Louis Dispatch “Secret Service gets revision of Kennedy wound – after visit by agents, doctors say shot was from rear. [The Secret Service] obtained a reversal of their original view that the bullet in his neck entered from the front.”

          • THE JFK MEDICAL REFERENCE / Par
            ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol.1
            4 No. 2 © Copyright 2006 Vincent M. Palamara
            PART 1
            Parkland Hospital
            Page 7:_St. Louis Post-Dispatch`, 12/1/63—_This [the neck wound] did appear to
            be an entrance wound.`[another important >St. Louis Post-DispatchA article,
            dated 12/18/63: > Secret Service Gets Revision of Kennedy Wound-after visit
            by agents, doctors say shot was from rear.A-“[the Secret Service] obtained a
            reversal of their original view that the bullet in his neck entered from the front.
            The investigators did so by showing the surgeons a document described as an
            autopsy report from the United States Naval Hospital at Bethesda. The surgeons
            changed their original view to conform with the report they were
            shown.” One of the agents may very well have been SA Elmer Moore.
            RIF#180-10109-10310 is a 6/1/77 HSCA interview transcript of graduate
            student James Gouchenaur and his 1970 conversation with Moore, who told
            him that he felt remorse for the way he (Moore) had badgered Dr. Perry into
            changing his testimony to the effect that there was not, after all, an entrance
            wound in the front of the president’s neck! (see 2 H 39, 41; 6 H 36-37; and
            _Best Evidence`, pages 156, 166-167, 196 and 286); SEE ALSO CD 379; 3 H
            363, 364 and 6 H 6, 7 (Carrico); 3 H 387 and 6 H 17 (Perry); 6 H 27 (Clark);
            6 H 57 (Jones); 6 H 44 (Baxter); 6 H 50-51 (Jenkins); 6 H 63 (Bashour); 6 H
            75 (Giesecke); ];
            http://jfkhistory.com/bell/med%20evidence.pdf
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Dr. Perry told the ARRB:

            “I was advised by almost everybody I talked to, Secret Service, FBI, and the Warren Commission counsel to tell the truth as best I knew it in its entirety and to hold nothing back on every occasion, and that occurred on a number of occasions that they asked me to be sure that it was everything as best I knew it no matter what. So I can say at least for me they seemed to make every effort to get at –
            MR. GUNN: uh-huh.
            DR. PERRY: — the truth.”

            Elmer Moore denied Gouchenaur’s accusations when he testified to the Church Committee, pointing out that inducing any witness to change his testimony was a felony:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1424&search=elmer_AND+moore+AND+parkland#relPageId=37&tab=page

            How likely is it that a Secret Service agent would tell a JFK researcher that he’d committed a felony? Or that he thought JFK “was a traitor”? Or that he’d destroyed a photo Ruby’s sister allegedly gave him?

            Someone on the Church Committee asked Gouchenaur, “Do you this it was odd he was being this candid with you, a complete stranger?”

            Gouchenaur replied: “Completely.”

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=49383&search=James_Gochenaur#relPageId=23&tab=page

            So why should I believe anything Gouchenaur said? Seriously, why?

          • So Jean,

            We know that SS Agent Moore did in fact confront Dr Perry, “but it was in a nice way.” grin

            So we are to take from this that James Gouchenaur was the one lying about Moore telling him about leaning on Perry because…because???

            Why don’t you tell us why Gouchenaur would lie about this?

            Because it flies in the face of the known Intelligence service’s MO and routine habits of the use of coercion.

            And we have no proven MO of Gouchenaur being a liar.

            Or are you of the opinion that there can be ‘nothing sinister’ in this because the agents of the government are all “honorable men’?
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, exactly where did Moore confront Perry? He interviewed him. There is no evidence in anything that Tom S.has posted that Moore did anything but ask Perry what his perceptions of the wounds were. Why did Gochenaur disappear from the JFK story after the HSCA hearings? Why don’t you ask him if you think he is so credible. He still lives in Milwaukee .

          • Jean Davison says:

            Moore showed Perry a copy of the autopsy report:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=43611&relPageId=34&search=perry_AND

            Remember, Perry didn’t see the back wound. Once he knew there was one, what was he supposed to think? That there were TWO entrance wounds, no exit wounds, and no bullets found in the body?

            Why *shouldn’t* Perry revise his opinion after learning about a back wound?

            Ever heard of a trial in which the DA called an ER doctor to describe the wounds instead of the person who did the autopsy?

  28. Bob Prudhomme says:

    “Pat

    All well and good. However, can you not just answer a simple question? Where do you believe the fatal head shot came from, and where do you believe it impacted JFK’s skull?”

    ———————————————————————

    Sorry, Pat, did I miss your answer?

  29. Ray Mitcham says:

    http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/arrbpark.htm
    Dr Peters to the ARRB.

    “And then Dr. Jenkins said, boys, before you think about opening the chest, you’d better step up here and look at this brain. And so at that point I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked in the President’s head, and I reported to the Warren Commission that there was about a seven-centimeter hole in the occipitoparietal area that there was obviously quite a bit of brain missing. Some brain was hanging down in the wound, and I thought the cerebellum had been injured as well as the cerebral cortex. That’s what I said at the time.”

    Didn’t know what he is talking about according to the “professor”

  30. Ray Mitcham says:

    Professor McAdams asks if the autopsy photos are faked.

    If they aren’t faked then they must have been taken of somebody, or at a time different to those who witnessed the autopsy.

    From O’Neill sworn testimony to the ARRB:  (see for example: https://www.maryferrell.org/mmfweb/ or many other sources for this testimony.)
     
    Mr. Gunn: Okay.  Can we take a look now at view number six, which is described as “wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region”, Color Photograph No. 42 [which we recognize as the back of head autopsy photo: ALF]
     
    Q:  I’d like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy?
     
    A: This looks like it’s been doctored in some way…
     
     
    From Sibert sworn testimony to the ARRB:
     
    Q: Okay.  If we could now look at the sixth view which is described as the “wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region”. Photograph No. 42 [same “back of head” autopsy photo: ALF]
     
    Mr. Sibert, does that photograph correspond to your recollection of the back of President Kennedy’s head?
     
    A:  Well, I don’t have a recollection of it being that intact as compared with these other pictures.  I don’t remember seeing anything that was like this photo.

  31. Milyn says:

    Bob P. I was looking at a bunch of JFK videos on youtube. I don’t remember which one it was. If I come across it, I’ll reach out to you.

    Milyn

  32. Milyn says:

    Bob P. Just did a quick search on yt-didn’t see the Bill Newman video. Maybe I saw it on a website- but those were his words.

    There is a very brief video on yt with Jim Chaney- one of the motorcycle cops riding next to JFK. He said he saw the president hit “in the face.”

    Milyn

  33. Milyn says:

    Tom S. The “uu” you refer to was my mistake. I use a nook-sometimes it does strange things when I’m typing.

    Milyn

  34. PAT SPEER … Paging Pat Speer, you have a call waiting for you at the white courtesy telephone.

    There is this question hovering in the ozone here… it is a simple one, but apparently is a difficult one for Mr Speer to answer.

    It goes like this: In your opinion, did the shot(s) to Kennedy’s head come from the rear, the front, or the right side?

    Please and thank you … gawddambit!
    \\][//

    • pat speer says:

      Here’s your answer, Willy:
      http://www.patspeer.com/chapter20%3Aconclusionsandconfusions%3A

      P.S. Sometimes I’m reluctant to post or explain my theories because most people only want to know what you think so they can write you off. As far as I’m concerned, my theories are a work in progress. Subject to change.

      • Thanks Pat,

        It is an interesting information filled page.

        I found this particularly interesting:

        https://i2.wp.com/www.patspeer.com/_/rsrc/1268954211903/seductionof-full.jpg

        \\][//

      • Pat, you provide this image in your article:

        http://www.patspeer.com/_/rsrc/1268954427220/breaking2.jpg

        My last wife was a “Nurse Practitioner” (master’s degree).
        I read the book on ‘Medical Ethics’ that was part of her program.

        I was appalled to read therein a chapter on ‘backing up ones colleagues’ – a whole chapter was devoted to the propriety of breaking the Hippocratic Oath in favor of “sticking together” and “going along to get along”.

        One can come away from something like this rather disheartened. My wife had a personal dilemma that concerned this issue of ethics, as she was aware of several doctors in her unit that were F’ing up big time leading to major extensive medical complications of quite a few patients. And these same doctors were covering each other’s asses.

        My wife was the one who pointed out the chapter in her text book on that aspect of “medical ethics”. An oxymoron of critical proportion by any reasonable standard.

        As we know the same “ethical standards” apply to law enforcement, and the legal professions as well. It is such blatant self-corruption; OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED, that should disturb each and every one of us.

        Such blatant and open hypocrisy defines this pathological society we find ourselves in…with it’s sublimely Orwellian ‘Doublethink and Newspeak’.
        _____________________________________________________

        http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/audio/HSCA_HumesBoswell.htm

        Having listened to the audio clips from these sessions with Humes, Boswell and the HSCA pathologists, I got the distinct impression that Humes was lying, covering up something. He had a very defensive tone and a compensating arrogance that seemed to belie guilt. I think he was involved in a cover-up. Boswell seemed to just be going along to get along, taking cues from Humes.
        \\][//

        • By the way, I would like to encourage all the readers of this blog to read this article by Pat Speer:

          http://www.patspeer.com/chapter20%3Aconclusionsandconfusions%3A

          It is pretty long, but well worth the effort of reading the whole thing.

          Thanks Pat!
          \\][//

        • pat speer says:

          We’re on the same page here, Willy. In the 1960’s, I think there was a lot of governmental pressure on Humes and Boswell to go along with the single-bullet theory, and pretend the back wound was a neck wound. I think that after the Clark Panel moved the entrance on the back of the head, this pressure switched in nature, whereby Humes and Boswell were now being pressured by their “peers” (and not just the Justice Dept.) into going along with the cowlick entrance. To their credit, they were much more resistant to this pressure. One of the most telling parts of the HSCA transcripts, in fact, is the part where Loquvam suggests they stop recording the interview with Humes and Boswell, as it was becoming embarrassing to their profession, or some such thing. FWIW, one of my many small discoveries was that the tape of the HSCA’s interview of Finck went on for some time after the end of the official transcript, and that it degenerated into Baden and Weston badgering Finck into going along with the cowlick entry, and Finck’s resisting, until Wecht and Petty jumped in and asked Baden and Weston to stop. Amazing, but true.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        I read your page, Pat, and had to stop after I managed to make it through your ballistics “calculations”. It was simply too painful to continue.

        Want some good advice? Get help, you are lost.

        • pat speer says:

          Your attitude is what’s wrong with the “research” community, Bob. You read one section on one page you thought was wrong, and quit reading.

          You know next to nothing about 80% of what’s on my webpage, but have deprived yourself the opportunity to learn anything due to my coming to a different conclusion than you on one point. You think it unlikely for a bullet to strike Kennedy but not enter his body. We have a number of witnesses who say that this was so. You insist they were incompetent or lying. I, on the other hand, believe these witnesses were correct, and believe there are too many factors involved in the shooting (Did the sniper use the scope? Did he practice with the rifle to account for bullet drop, etc?) to embrace your argument a short shot was impossible.

          You will never find a book or website that tells you exactly what you want to believe. The only way to learn is to read as much as possible about this (or any topic on which you have an interest) and see how it fits (or doesn’t fit) together.

          If I recall, you’d like us to believe the bullet creating the back wound entered Kennedy’s back and lodged in his lung. No one present at the autopsy noted such a thing. The recollections of the autopsy witnesses were all over the map, but none of them said anything about the bullet entering the lung. In fact, they said the opposite…that strangely, and to everyone’s surprise, they found the bullet didn’t enter the lung.

          In my book, then, your claim the bullet entered the lung just doesn’t fit.

          Sorry.

          • Photon says:

            In his Warren report Perry stated that they had no evidence for a pneumothorax , but the presence of air in the mediastinum made a pneumothorax possible. As the morbidity of placing a chest tube was negligible while the potential complications of a pneumothorax were potentially fatal, the ER team PROPHYLACTICALLY placed chest tubes. Bob apparently was never aware that this is now the standard of care in trauma centers across the U.S. in cases of chest trauma and possible mediastinal injury. Now nobody waits for a diagnosis of pneumothorax before taking action.

          • I think the bullet that entered Kennedy’s back at T3 worked its way out during Dr Perry’s frantic pounding on JFK’s chest in his hysterical attempt to get the heart beating.

            It certainly could not have exited through the throat as the Magic Bullet buffs assert. And it was not found in the X-rays. And the probe during autopsy indicated a shallow wound.

            That bullet was likely thrown out with bloody towels when the trauma room was cleaned up.
            (Although there is a report that Audrey Bell found a bullet during cleanup and handed it to an unidentified agent.)
            \\][//

          • “in his Warren report Perry stated that they had no evidence for a pneumothorax”~Photon

            Where in the Warren Report Testimony did Perry state this Photon? Who was the interrogator? What page? Anything but your own assertion to go on here?
            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Pat

            I’ve forgotten more than you will ever know about firearms and ballistics. Your discussion of the ridiculous and impossible “short shot” that supposedly struck JFK’s back and could not even penetrate the shallow tissue of the intercostal muscle more than proves that.

            Have you ever hand loaded your own rifle cartridges?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Photon

            Jenkins stated a right chest tube was inserted for other reasons.

            From his WC testimony:

            “About this time Drs. Kemp Clark and Paul Peters came in, and Dr. Peters because of the appearance of the right chest, the obvious physical characteristics of a pneumothorax, put in a closed chest drainage chest tube.”

            “…obvious physical characteristics of a pneumothorax…..”

            Gee, I wonder what Jenkins meant by that, and why he only referred to the right chest.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Willy

            Doctors only pound repeatedly and frantically on patients in cardiac arrest in the movies. The “precordial thump” is a measured and limited and singular blow meant to interrupt a potentially life threatening heart rhythm seen in ventricular defibrillation. We do NOT repeatedly pound on a patient’s chest to get his heart going.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precordial_thump

          • Pat,

            In my opinion Mr Prudhomme overestimates his knowledge of ballistics.
            He is a hunter with that sort of knowledge of firearms and ammunition.
            But this doesn’t make one an expert in ballistics.
            \\][//

          • “Doctors only pound repeatedly and frantically on patients in cardiac arrest in the movies.”~Bob Prudhomme

            Anyone can panic in certain situations Bob. Doctors are not gods.
            \\][//

          • FIFTY AUTOPSY PHOTOS

            Dr. McClelland says the great defect in the back IS visible on
            some photographs amongst the FULL set of some *FIFTY pictures* he saw at the
            National Archives`; B) 8/29/89 letter to Joanne Braun (_The Third Decade`,
            March 1991)—sees nothing to be concerned about re: the incision(s) that
            appear in the official autopsy photos;
            q) _Inside Edition`, June 1989—McClelland _says the x-rays do not show the
            same injuries to the President’s head that he saw in the emergency room, “I
            think he was shot from the front.” [see _Conspiracy`, pp. 485-486]

            Page 8: http://jfkhistory.com/bell/med%20evidence.pdf

            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Since I have proven that McClelland’s initial perception of the head wound was based on the interpretation of others,which he confirmed to the ARRB (and now also confirmed by the post above by Tom S. of Perry’s interview) shouldn’t you give the “McClelland stated” commentary a rest?
            If he had anywhere near the close examination of the head that he has been claiming for 50 years he never would have written the Nov. 22 inaccurate statement.But he did-and it impeaches everything he has stated since in regard to the head wound.

          • I think Perry has been lying ever since the SS agent leaned on him. He not only contradicts McClelland, but every other Parkland doctor and other witnesses who saw the large wound to the back of Kennedy’s head. Even Boswell describes the wound as from the occipital to the frontal bone.

            Whatever they threatened Perry with must have shook him to the core.
            \\][//

          • Apparently this was just an interview, not an interrogation under oath.

            Dr. Perry began the interview by stating that the intervening 14 years since the assassination have “not sharpened my recall.” ~Donald A. Purdy

            “The wound was somewhere, probably 4 to 6 mm in diameter.”~Dr. Perry describing throat wound.
            . . .

            Does everybody understand how tiny this is? In my opinion, anyone claiming this could have been an exit wound is out of their mind!

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M59If_Perry.pdf

            \\][//

          • “in his Warren report Perry stated that they had no evidence for a pneumothorax”~Photon

            “I thought perhaps there might also have been a hemo or pneumthorax accident .” Dr Perry (pg 10)

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M59If_Perry.pdf

            \\][//

          • pat speer says:

            While it’s easy to jump to the conclusion the SS leaned on the Parkland doctors to change their impression of the wounds, when one looks closely at the record, this just isn’t so. The SS identified a disparity in the record–that the Parkland doctors thought the throat wound was an entrance when the autopsy report said it was an exit. They then took the report to show the Parkland doctors and find out what was going on. To a man, the Parkland doctors deferred to the autopsy report. Which is what their training tells them to do. To this day, every Parkland doctor to see the wound (including Jones and Salyer) will tell you it looked like an entrance but could have been an exit.

            The head wound was a different matter. When one compares the early reports vs. the testimony, the Parkland doctors only got more convinced the wound was on the back of the head over time. They didn’t realize this was a problem until they were shown the autopsy photos almost 20 years later. Then most of them–not just Perry–said they were obviously mistaken when they indicated the wound was on the back of the head, and that they’d seen cerebellum. Now, an awful lot of CTs are unaware of this–but the reality is that the writers and researchers pushing that the Parkland witnesses’ early statements are the smoking gun of the assassination, and proof the fatal head shot came from the front–have nothing but contempt for the bulk of the key Parkland witnesses (e.g. Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, Baxter, Jones, Salyer, who all deferred to the authenticity of the medical evidence) and consider them to be cowards and liars. And instead place their faith in McClelland, or at least what they would like to believe about McClelland, along with relatively minor figures like Crenshaw. While many if not most prominent CTs, entrenched in their position since the 80’s, fail to see this as a problem, I came along in the 00’s and saw this as a huge problem, and suspect many others to come to the case will as well.

          • “in his Warren report Perry stated that they had no evidence for a pneumothorax”~Photon

            “I thought perhaps there might also have been a hemo or pneumothorax accident .” Dr Perry (pg 10)

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M59If_Perry.pd

            \\][//

          • “While it’s easy to jump to the conclusion the SS leaned on the Parkland doctors to change their impression of the wounds, when one looks closely at the record, this just isn’t so.”~Pat Speer

            Oh really? I don’t think that is how things are turning out on this thread.

            There are reasons other than Perry’s opinion on 11/22/1963 that the throat wound was one of entry. There is the impossible trajectory of that bullet coming from the TBDB 6th floor window.

            There is the impossibility of a bullet entering at T-3 exiting from the throat from that angle and height.

            There is the proof of a single shot to JFK’s head from the southwest end of the triple underpass as found in the Z-film. IE: head nod, bloodspatter and the trajectory proven by CSI Fiester’s PHOTOGRAMMETRIC analysis of Dealey Plaza accounting for JFKs head pose and angle.

            See:
            https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/sherry-fiester-on-enemy-of-the-truth/
            And:
            https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/forensics-ballistics-jfk/#comment-12838

            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Of course Willy is an expert in bullet trajectories,ballistics, JFK’s position in the limo,etc. As soon as he goes with the T3 entrance myth he reveals himself to be ignorant of the actual shooting scenario . Willy, have you ever been to Dealey Plaza or been to the Sixth Floor? The actual dimensions are much shorter than most CTers realize; the shot from the Sixth Floor was incredibly easy. I have always felt the best way to lead CTers to the truth is to tell them to go to Dealey Plaza and discover that so many of the “facts” about the site are simply wrong.
            But willy, the back wound was not at T3.

          • I asked Photon to explain to the forum what a ‘fixed body landmark’ in human anatomy is, not to prove his ignorance of anatomy one more time by insisting that JFK’s back wound wasn’t at T-3.

            That question has nothing to do with the size of Dealey Plaza or how easy the purported shot was from the TBDB — it has to do with ANATOMY.
            \\][//

          • For the pleasure of Mr Prudhomme:

            The Sibert and O’Neill Report
            One aspect of Dr Finck’s testimony is open to question. He agreed with the revised version of the autopsy report, which stated that the pathologists had concluded during the autopsy that one bullet had caused both the back and throat wounds.

            This was contradicted by the two FBI agents who attended the autopsy. James Sibert and Francis O’Neill informed the pathologists during the latter stages of the autopsy that a bullet had been retrieved from Parkland Hospital. In their report and in a later memorandum, the **agents maintained that the pathologists were satisfied that this bullet had fallen out of the president’s back during emergency cardiac massage.** The Sibert and O’Neill Report was not made public until after Dr Finck had testified in New Orleans.

            The Sibert and O’Neill Report:
            ARRB MD 149 – FBI Teletype To: Director and SAC, Dallas From: SAC, Baltimore (dated November 23, 1963) Summarizing Basic Autopsy Conclusions As Relayed by Two BUAGENTS Who Witnessed Autopsy
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=680

            \\][//

  35. Just as a general observation:

    Since JFK was killed by a shot to the head, why are there so few photos and X-rays of JFK’s head from the autopsy? This was after all, the President of the United States.

    I think it preposterous to accept that so few photos were actually taken.
    There simply must be more, and I for one would like to know where the others are stashed.

    Seriously…only TWO X-rays? And these without teeth!

    Gimme a break.
    \\][//

    • pat speer says:

      Willy… The skull x-rays showed the teeth! They were only published without the teeth.

      And btw, there were three skull x-rays. 2 lateral and one AP. They were taken with a portable x-ray machine as part of an effort to find bullets in the body and bullet lead in the skull. They were not taken for posterity, or future review, as one would hope, or presume.

  36. “If he had anywhere near the close examination of the head that he has been claiming for 50 years he never would have written the Nov. 22 inaccurate statement.But he did-and it impeaches everything he has stated since in regard to the head wound.”~Photon

    If Perry had not stated that the throat was an entry wound on Nov. 22, and that he now sees that as an inaccurate statement. But he did, and it impeaches everything he has stated since in regard to the throat wound.

    Is this not a fair way to approach such issues, according to Photon’s “standards”?
    \\][//

    • Photo says:

      Perry saw the throat wound and never relied on somebody else’s description . I don’t recall that he ever changed his actual description of the wound-only that he thought it could be an entrance or exit wound..
      As he admitted that he never closely looked at the head wound you certainly can make a case for discarding his impressions of that wound. It is obvious to me that the ER docs initially believed that JFK had been shot from the front, that the neck wound was the actual potentially fatal wound and that the head wound was an exit from that shot. Their incomplete exam was the basis for that view; had they had an idea that there were two other wounds ion the body they may have come to another conclusion. If they had actually looked closely at the head wound they never would have proceeded with the trach or chest tube placement.
      It is impossible to come to an accurate diagnosis with an incomplete physical exam.
      But sure, dismiss everything Perry says. At least he admitted that he was mistaken in his interpretation of the neck wound and he had the BEST view of it of anybody.
      And that in itself confirms my position that the ER doctors impressions were superficial ,incomplete and in part wrong.

      • Tom S. says:

        Perry saw the throat wound and never relied on somebody else’s description . I don’t recall that he ever changed his actual description of the wound-only that he thought it could be an entrance or exit wound….
        …At least he admitted that he was mistaken in his interpretation of the neck wound and he had the BEST view of it of anybody….

        He admits he was mistaken? You twist and interpret and you NEVER EVER post a link to any source. You are commenting on
        an internet site. You repeatedly say the opposite of what is plain to readers. Dr. Perry described what he saw, fresh from
        his unsuccessful attempt to treat President Kennedy’s wounds. The record of what he said to the press in the afternoon of 22 November was suppressed for a dozen years. There is evidence Secret Service Chief Rowley lied to WC chief counsel Rankin, stating in a letter that neither a transcript or recorded media of Drs. Perry’s and Kemp’s comments to the press
        was located. I presented in a prior comment, and linked in this post, the evidence that Rowley was provided a copy of the Perry/Kemp press transcript, and that Rowley’s copy of the press transcript did survive.

        You make no allowance for what Dr. Perry actually said, or for the unavailability of any evidence of what he said to the press on 22 November, until after the WCR was long published, yet you repeatedly contradict this record.
        I asked you before, who do you expect your receptive readers are? Why do this? It seems provocative and disruptive.

        http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md41/html/Image4.htm

        http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md41/html/Image5.htm

        http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M59If_Perry.pdf


        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          This is I think the third time I’ve posted this on this site so forgive me if you have already read it.
          In 2013 Dr. McClelland came to a small University an hour out of the D/FW metromess to give a presentation on his memories of 11/22/63 and the aftermath. I introduced myself beforehand explaining I might need to leave before he was done and to please not be offended. I stayed.
          When the afterward question session started he pointed to my raised hand.
          I said Dr. McClelland, on the afternoon of the assassination Dr. Perry said three times on tape that the throat wound was one of entrance. He later changed his opinion on this. Do you think anyone influenced him to change his opinion?
          He hesitated. But when he said “Yes” there was an audible gasp from the crowd of 200 in a 100 seat lecture hall.

          • Photon says:

            Yes Ronnie. It is called an “autopsy”.Perry states very clearly in the YouTube interview I referred to in answering Tom S. why he thought the neck wound could be an entrance wound but also why it could have been an exit wound.
            Who caused McClelland to change his opinion that JFK’s only head wound was in the left temple? He committed that opinion to a legal document, not a press conference. Obviously someone coerced him to impeach the only legal document in regards to JFK that he wrote on Nov 22, 1963. Why?

        • Photon says:

          Tom S., I am not sure what it is that you are trying to say about Perry. He and Clark gave a press conference shortly after the assassination where Perry speculated that the neck wound could be an entrance wound. Apparently he also felt that it could have been a wound of exit, but neglected to state as such to the individuals present. Neither one of them knew that he had a back wound.Neither one of them knew that he had an entrance wound at the back of the head. Neither one of them had any experience giving press conferences, yet here they were giving one on the unsuccessful resusitation of the President of the United States.Why do you assume that there was some subversive purpose behind what Perry said during the most stressful period in his life and his latter statements trying to clarify what he actually meant at his first press conference? If only you CT theorists could spend some time in an ER you would realize that an 18 minute resusitative effort on a DOA patient is not indicative of a precise physical exam. General impressions that were made based on that incomplete exam were not necessarily accurate-a fact that unfortunately CTers simply can’t accept. I think that was the point that Perry tried to make in his few interviews on the subject after Nov. 22.
          Please state what I have posted about Perry that is in error.

      • Let me put the above into text for the forum here:

        Page 5 – # 1327-C

        Q: Where was the entrance wound?

        Dr. Perry: There was an entrance wound in the neck, as regards the head, I cannot say.

        Q: Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?

        Dr. Perry: It appeared to be coming at him.
        \\][//

      • Jean Davison says:

        Tom,

        “The record of what [Perry] said to the press in the afternoon of 22 November was suppressed for a dozen years.”

        Lifton’s “Best Evidence” says the UPI wire service quoted Perry immediately after the press conference: “there was an entrance wound below the Adam’s apple.” This was repeated the next day in the NY Times, etc. It was widely reported.

        • Tom S. says:

          “The record of what [Perry] said to the press in the afternoon of 22 November was suppressed for a dozen years.”

          Lifton’s “Best Evidence” says the UPI wire service quoted Perry immediately after the press conference: “there was an entrance wound below the Adam’s apple.” This was repeated the next day in the NY Times, etc. It was widely reported.

          Wow Jean. Wow! Who do you anticipate the intended, receptive readership of your comment is?
          Whoever those readers are, your intent seems to be to misinform them.

          http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11077&relPageId=2

          Secret Service chief Rowley’s copy of the Perry / Kemp 22 November press conference transcript Rowley
          described as unobtainable in the letter in the image above.:
          http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md41/html/Image0.htm

          http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md41/html/Image9.htm

          http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/pdf/DH_ProtocolCC2.pdf

          Jean, I just posted three days ago, the details above in a comment.
          (see- http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/dr-robert-mcclelland-a-story-he-feels-compelled-to-share/#comment-865622 )
          Jean, now let us read a response from you, an Orwellian explanation of how you want to offer JFKfacts.org readers a balance view related to the suppression of all verifiable evidence of what Drs. Perry and Kemp described in the context they described it, and in their own words. You’re just trying to give JFKfacts.org
          readers a clearer picture and I anticipate they are very appreciative!

          • Photon says:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNZtWuWn9je
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUj5inyS56s
            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/perry_ml.htm
            From Perry’s Warren testimony:”I pointed out that both Dr. Clark and Ihad no way of knowing from whence the bullet came.”
            Further: ” I expressed it as a matter of SPECULATION that this was conceivable.”
            More than once in his Warren interview did Perry refer exactly to the speculation that I mentioned.
            What are you trying to imply-that Perry’s Nov 22 press conference is the gold standard as to the true nature of JFK’s wounds?

          • Photon says:

            If my links are not accurate go to YouTube and view Welton Hartford’s and Vince Palmera’s Perry interviews.

          • Tom,
            This is a truly fascinating document you have linked to:
            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/pdf/DH_ProtocolCC2.pdf

            MEMORANDUM
            August 2,1996
            To: Jeremy Gunn, David Marwell, Tim Wray
            cc: Joan Zimmerman, Joe Freeman
            From: Doug Horne

            “Subject: More on Chain-of-Custody Discrepancy Re: Original Copy of President
            John F. Kennedy’s Autopsy Protocol

            Further study of the record has revealed numerous indicia which support the
            possibility that the original autopsy protocol transmitted by the Burkley inventory and
            receipt (attachment 5 to original memo) was a different (earlier) report than the autopsy
            protocol published by the Warren Commission (CE 387). The circumstantial evidence
            for this hypothesis is laid out in some detail below:
            -Paragraph 9 of attachment 5 references a complete autopsy protocol of President
            Kennedy as being an ” . ..Original signed by Dr. Humes, pathologist.” However,
            the Autopsy Protocol which is in evidence today as CE 387, attachment 10, is
            signed by all three pathologists–Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck–on page 6.
            Considering the precision with which the Burkley inventory-and-receipt seems
            to have been made out, one would expect that if it were describing CE 387, that it
            would reference an original autopsy protocol signed by all 3 prosectors, and that
            it would have listed them by name (i.e., “original signed by Drs. Humes, Boswell,
            and Finck”), not just by “Dr. Humes, pathologist.” The wording which describes
            the protocol in paragraph 9 of attachment 5 implies that only one pathologist
            signed the original report being transmitted.’”
            * * * * * * * * ** * *

            I will be mining this for gems this morning!
            \\][//

          • “What are you trying to imply-that Perry’s Nov 22 press conference is the gold standard as to the true nature of JFK’s wounds?”~Photon

            As far as the wound to the throat, yes, absolutely.
            \\][//

          • I would appreciate “doctor” Photon explaining to the forum what a ‘fixed body landmark’ in human anatomy is.

            For instance, is the measurement from the tip of the fingers to the wrist a fixed body landmark?

            Is the measurement from the left to right temple a fixed body landmark?

            Is the measurement from the elbow to the wrist a fixed body landmark?
            . . .
            Clue: Two of the measurements inquired of are in fact fixed body landmarks and one is not.
            \\][//

          • Horne t:\medical\chain2.wpd File: 4.0.2 (JFK Medical)

            “The autopsy report in evidence today, Warren Commission Exhibit # 387, is the third version prepared of that report; it is not the sole version, as was claimed for years by those who wrote it and signed it.”~Douglas P. Horne

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/pdf/DH_ProtocolCC2.pdf

            \\][//

        • Jean Davison says:

          “Wow Jean. Wow! Who do you anticipate the intended, receptive readership of your comment is?
          Whoever those readers are, your intent seems to be to misinform them.”

          Missed this earlier. What do you think I said that was misinformation? Please be specific in plain English. My post was addressed to you, Tom. You were my intended “readership.”

          I notice that the document you keep posting says Rankin asked Rowley in 3/64 for “the video tape and transcript” of Perry’s “television interview” and Rowley found that the TV stations didn’t have one. That’s because (as Gary Mack pointed out) there were no TV cameras at the press conference. This was before the days of portable TV cameras.

          As I understand it, a White House stenographer made the transcript and sent Rowley (and presumably others) a copy. Are you sure that Rowley personally saw this document in November, remembered it four months later, and deliberately withheld it? Why should he do that? Perry’s statement about an “entry” wound had already been widely reported.

          Disagreeing with you doesn’t mean I’m wrong. I’d never say “your intent seems to be to misinform,” just because I think I’m right and you’re wrong. You shouldn’t make that unfair assumption, either.

          • “As I understand it, a White House stenographer made the transcript and sent Rowley”~Jean Davison

            As you “understand it” Jean? Do you have a citation?

            This press conference may have had no TV cameras at the press conference. “This was before the days of portable TV cameras.” [not necessarily so] but nevertheless portable audio recorders were in use long before this.
            . . . . .
            Dallas ABC affiliate WFAA-TV used this mobile unit to cover the Nov. 22, 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy. The camera atop the bus appears to be a Marconi Mark IV, which used a 4.5-inch image orthicon pickup tube. The hearse carries JFK’s body from Parkland hospital to transport back to Washington, D.C.

            http://www.tvtechnology.com/feature-box/0124/tv-coverage-of-the-kennedy-assassination/222441

            \\][//

          • Malcolm Kilduff, seen pointing to his right temple as the entry wound to JFK’s head is from video footage shot at Parkland Hospital on 11/22/1963

            As this was shot at Parkland, it seems only logical to conclude there were video cameras there during Dr Perry’s press conference.
            \\][//

          • Newsman with TV camera at Parkland Hospital press conference with Kilduff

            http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/24/72/27/5481935/3/1024×1024.jpg

            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Jean, as I’ve supported here;
            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/22057/#comment-866260

            I find your reaction and analysis foreign to the reasonable person standard. Have you even been the least bit curious about….say… this laborious attribution?:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm

            …..This transcript was typed by former JFK researcher Kathleen Cunningham and given to Barb Junkkarinen in late 1994…

            Do you see 1327-c presented anywhere on that page?

            Is it not reasonable to suspect Rowley suppressed the transcript, his copy of 1327-c? If not, why not, especially considering Elmer Moore’s unusual interjection into what seems a purvey of doctors at Parkland and Bethesda? What was Moore’s point, and who assigned him? Was he read in, or is this perjury?:
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1424&relPageId=42&search=aware

            Is mine a reasonable reaction, Jean, or is yours reasonable? I think they cannot both be….

          • Jean Davison says:

            Tom,

            “I find your reaction and analysis foreign to the reasonable person standard.”

            You realize that’s a subjective opinion, right? Everybody thinks his opinion is “the reasonable person standard.”

            “Have you even been the least bit curious about….say… this laborious attribution?:

            QUOTE:
            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm

            …..This transcript was typed by former JFK researcher Kathleen Cunningham and given to Barb Junkkarinen in late 1994…

            Do you see 1327-c presented anywhere on that page?
            UNQUOTE

            Tom, I have no idea what your point is. Could I have a translation?

            “Is it not reasonable to suspect Rowley suppressed the transcript, his copy of 1327-c?”

            If you let suspicion fill in the blanks, you can believe anything you want.
            How many documents do you suppose Rowley’s office received in late November 1963? Do you think he read and remembered all of them? Perry’s statements about the throat wound were public knowledge from day one and had been widely reported. Barn door, horse.

            Do you actually believe that Moore told a JFK researcher he’d committed a felony? Do you think Perry lied when he told the ARRB that no one pressured him?

            I don’t see any perjury in Moore’s saying that he didn’t think Perry relocated any wounds. Perry called it an entrance wound but he didn’t relocate it, did he?

          • “Do you think Perry lied when he told the ARRB that no one pressured him?”~Jean Davison

            I recognize this is a question put to Tom, who may answer as he will. But I have to inject here that I do think Perry lied. I do think he was pressured to change his opinion that the throat wound was one of entry.

            There is nothing particularly convincing about a back wound that was apparently a wound of entrance to compel someone to change their opinion on whether another wound was an entrance wound.

            Despite Perry’s waffle-language after Moore’s “gentle urging”, an exit wound of the throat wound’s description is a high anomaly in gunshot wounds.

            You seem to have no appreciation of what it means to buck the system for an up and coming professional. In fact you seem extremely inclined to go along to get along as a personal profile.

            There are very few who will risk their livelihood when they are offered a plausible excuse to change their true opinion; wherein they can save both face and job, as well as fuss and hassle.
            \\][//

          • “Exit wounds are invariably larger than entrance wounds, as was the case with all ten of the Edgewood Arsenal experiments on human wrists.”
            ~Dr Joseph Dolce

            http://22november1963.org.uk/edgewood-arsenal-bullet-tests

            “invariably”
            adverb
            > in every case or on every occasion; always.
            “the meals here are invariably big and hearty”
            synonyms:always, on every occasion, at all times, without fail, without exception.
            http://www.dictionary.com/browse/invariably

            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Exit wounds are invariably larger than entrance wounds, as was the case with all ten of the Edgewood Arsenal experiments on human wrists.”
            ~Dr Joseph Dolce

            http://22november1963.org.uk/edgewood-arsenal-bullet-tests
            ———–

            Thanks for that fine example of misinformation coming from Dr. Dolce and your secondary source, Willy.

            It’s flat-out wrong that exit wounds are “invariably” larger than entrance wounds. They are usually larger, but not always. Google it:

            https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22exit+wounds%22+%22not+always+larger%22

            For instance:

            “Exit wounds are typically larger … than exit wounds…. ”

            https://books.google.com/books?id=4qhjZ4HwW3UC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=%22di+maio%22+%22exit+wounds%22+larger+entrance&source=bl&ots=9c6m7qlOUv&sig=HGIBiSjP_jv7PVYmsCpuP6XxBCM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi48tqplfDLAhVjnoMKHeWnCXUQ6AEIJzAD#v=onepage&q=%22di%20maio%22%20typically%20%22exit%20wounds%22%20larger%20entrance&f=false

            Typically, not “invariably.”

            Dolce was referring to Connally’s wrist wound, which had an entrance wound larger than its exit, as his wrist surgeon testified. Among other things, there was a hole in Connally’s jacket and fibers carried into his wrist revealed the bullet’s path:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=34&relPageId=127&search=mohair_AND Gregory

          • As it is said Jean, “the exception proves the rule”. Yes, exit wounds are “typically” larger than entrance wounds’.
            . . . . .

            typical

            adjective
            having the distinctive qualities of a particular type of person or thing.

            synonyms:representative, classic, quintessential, archetypal, model, prototypical, stereotypical, paradigmatic; More
            characteristic of a particular person or thing.

            synonyms:characteristic, in keeping, usual, normal, par for the course, predictable, true to form; More
            informal
            showing the characteristics expected of or popularly associated with a particular person, situation, or thing.
            ____________________________________

            That’s right!
            \\][//

          • “Dolce was referring to Connally’s wrist wound, which had an entrance wound larger than its exit, as his wrist surgeon testified.”~Jean Davison

            Yes indeed, all ten of the cadaver’s wrists tested at Edgewood had exit wounds larger than the entrance wounds—that was the point that Dolce was making. They also resulted in greatly deformed bullets.
            \\][//

          • It should be pointed out that the bullet said to have entered Connally’s wrist had already encountered bone – it hit and shattered a rib on it’s way from his back armpit area. So when that bullet exited Connally’s chest it was already unstable and likely tumbling — so it should have hit the wrist tumbling, causing a larger entry wound, rather than visa versa.
            \\][//

          • “They also resulted in greatly deformed bullets.” — Willy Whitten

            And your response is, Jean?

          • Now, I have to say that all of the points made here as to Governor Connally and JFK’s wounds are rendered moot. This is because CE399 was never fired in Dealey Plaza. It was a plant.

            I will remind the forum that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the chain of possession for the Parkland Bullet ends after the first four people to handle that bullet.

            The first four witnesses to the Parkland Bullet could not identify it as C399; Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, Agent Richard E. Johnson, nor James Rowley.
            . . . . .

            A memo from the FBI’s Dallas field office dated 6/24/64 reported that, “ON JUNE TWENTYFOUR INSTANT RICHARD E. JOHNSEN, AND JAMES ROWLEY, CHIEF … ADVISED SA ELMER LEE TODD, WFO, THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO IDENTIFY RIFLE BULLET C ONE (# 399, which, before the Warren Commission had logged in as #399, was called “C ONE”), BY INSPECTION (capitals in original). [Fig. 6]:

            https://i0.wp.com/www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide6_thumb.gif

            http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “As it is said Jean, “the exception proves the rule”.

            What?? You just defined “invariably” as “… without fail, without exception.” Now you’re saying the opposite!

            Face it, Willy, Dolce was wrong about this. Exit wounds are not “invariably larger.”

            As Olivier explained, one possible cause of an entrance wound’s being larger than the exit is a yawing bullet:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296&search=%22figure_a14%22#relPageId=19&tab=page

            A bullet might yaw if it has already hit something else, which would also reduce its speed and the damage done to the target and to itself. This all fits with CE399 quite well.

            Duncan MacPherson was an expert who wrote this standard book on wound ballistics:

            http://www.amazon.com/Bullet-Penetration-Modeling-Incapacitation-Resulting-ebook/dp/B00L7CSV7E

            MacPherson had no problem with the SBT.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

          • CE399 was a stage prop, like most of the so-called “evidence” in the JFK case.

            The following links to more legible images of the documentation proving that the chain of custody for the Parkland Bullet ends after the first four people to handle that bullet.

            The first four witnesses to the Parkland Bullet could not identify it as C399; Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, Agent Richard E. Johnson, nor James Rowley:

            https://i0.wp.com/www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide5-1.GIF

            https://i0.wp.com/www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide6.GIF

            \\][//

          • “MacPherson had no problem with the SBT.” ~Jean Davison

            Nobody in the mainstream has a public problem with the SBT, it’s not good for prestige or business.
            \\][//

          • One of the most thorough articles on chains of custody of JFK bullets is this one by Bill Simpich:

            “The chief of the Dallas police crime lab, Carl Day, said he initialed all three hulls found on the sixth floor at about 1 pm on the afternoon of November 22.

            When Day testified on 4/22/64 to the Warren Commission, he had to admit that he did not initial any of them during the time that they were found at the 6th floor of the book depository.

            As the hulls are nondescript, initialing them is essential if anyone hopes to recognize such an item again. Detective Richard Sims wrote that after Day took pictures of the hulls, he picked up the “empty hulls”, Day held open an envelope, Sims dropped them in. Sims held onto an unsealed envelope with three hulls in it at 2 pm; at some point, homicide chief Will Fritz was given the envelope by Sims. Fritz later gave the envelope to a sergeant, who eventually brought one hull back to Fritz and the other two hulls back to Day.

            Day admitted during his Warren Commission testimony that he only initialed the two hulls in the unsealed envelope when he got it back at 10 that night. Day passed the shells on to FBI agent VinceDrain in the early morning, and I am similarly unaware of any record of Drain initialing any of these materials before he passed them on to firearms expert Robert Frazier at the FBI lab. Frazier’s testimony doesn’t mention anything about these shells being initialed by either of these men.

            These hulls should have been excluded based on the failure to have a reliable chain of custody.”~Simpich

            http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Warren-Commission-by-Bill-Simpich-Assassination_Evidence_JFK_JFK-Assassination-141119-717.html

            For more by Bill Simpich see:
            http://www.opednews.com/author/author41722.html
            \\][//

          • Every ballistics expert I have ever read make points in their work that is simply incongruent with the accepted and official version of the ballistics in the JFK case.

            Oft times it is a matter of not knowing other aspects of evidence in the case; such as Dolce’s opinions as opposed to his actual ballistics findings.

            Other times it has to do with cognitive dissonance as per going along to get along in ones profession. Both DiMaio and Sturdivan are mixtures of both. Mostly their lack of other knowledge in the case. Some like Lattimer are simply prevaricating.

            This is why one has to get a good grasp on the physics of ballistics oneself, and separate out the science from the opinions of these various experts.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Nobody in the mainstream has a public problem with the SBT, it’s not good for prestige or business.”

            Sure, that’s probably why Roland Zavada said the Z film is authentic and unaltered. Zavada was just “going along to get along,” right, Willy?

            No, he was a real expert who knew what he was talking about. You know that because of your background, but Z film alterationists might use the same line against Zavada that you’re using against MacPherson — based on suspicion alone, no evidence whatsoever.

            Assuming people who disagree with you are acting in bad faith is a self-deluding argument. I hope you see what I mean.

          • “Sure, that’s probably why Roland Zavada said the Z film is authentic and unaltered. Zavada was just “going along to get along,” right, Willy?”
            ~Jean Davison

            It is not the “authorities” that are claiming the Z-film is altered Jean, it is a faction of those you refer to as “CTers” who claim alteration.

            If you are going to make an argument against me, at least make it in the proper context.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “It is not the “authorities” that are claiming the Z-film is altered Jean, it is a faction of those you refer to as “CTers” who claim alteration.

            If you are going to make an argument against me, at least make it in the proper context.”

            You missed the point entirely, Willy. Let me try again.

            MacPherson agrees with the “authorities” that the SBT is plausible. Zavada agrees with the “authorities” about the Z film. The alterationists don’t accept his expertise, maybe for the same reason you reject MacPherson’s — they assume he’s not being honest because he agrees with the “authorities.”

            You’d rather believe Dolce, just as the alterations prefer to believe Horne.

          • “You’d rather believe Dolce, just as the alterations prefer to believe Horne.”~Jean Davison

            I prefer to accept rational arguments based on the data, whether it is presented by an “authority”, an “expert” or a “layman”.
            \\][//

          • Remember Jean,

            “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
            Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.”~Jesse Curry

            And I don’t mean it as just Curry’s quote; I mean that as us, the research community. There is no proof that Oswald fired that rifle.
            The compound evidence in fact proves that Oswald couldn’t have.
            \\][//

  37. Milyn says:

    One of the truest statements regarding JFK’s murder is “a wilderness of mirrors”.

    I’m just a novice- and have not devoted the time and effort many of you have. However, the one constant I thought to be true turns out not to be the case.

    I always thought that Bill Newman believed the head shot came from behind him – i.e., conspiracy. However, while trying to find the video interview for Bob P.-referenced in a previous post- I came across an interview with the Newmans from the Dallas Morning News- Nov. 9, 2012.

    Bill N. stated he does NOT believe the shot came from behind him- he says that is a misrepresentation. He said that was based on the visual perception of JFK being shot- not auditory. He went on to say he believes LHO was the lone shooter- but does not entirely rule out a conspiracy. I believe there is also yt video of him saying the same.

    I had also thought the gaping wound in JFK’s neck was an indication of a cover-up. However, the interview on this site with Dr McC proved that was wrong. He said that incision was made in Dallas when exploring the neck wound.

    Nothing is what it appears to be in the tragic death of JFK.

    Milyn

  38. Boswell: Carl Eardley sent me to a hotel, and I went into the hotel and registered. I was already registered. I got up to my room, and there was a note on my bedside table telling me to meet somebody at a certain place at a certain time. And this was a scary place. This was down around the wharfs, and the federal attorney’s office was in a big warehouse down there. And that’s–I met somebody on the street. He took me in there, and then they told me what was going on. They showed me the transcript of Pierre’s testimony for the past couple of days, and I spent all night reviewing that testimony. And it was this bit about the general. Jim said, “Who’s in charge here?” And when they asked Pierre in court who supervised and ran the autopsy, he says, “Some Army general.” And so that is why–and I never appeared. I spent two days down there and then came home, never appeared in court. And the government won their case.

    Gunn: Actually, the government was the district attorney. So my next question for you actually was: What was the United States Department of Justice doing in relationship to a case between the district attorney of New Orleans and a resident of New Orleans?

    Boswell: Well, they–I went over and met somebody, some lawyer in another firm that night, and I don’t know who he was representing. But, obviously, the federal attorney was on the side of Clay Shaw against the district attorney.
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
    \\][//

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more