What did the doctor who examined JFK’s head wound say?

Dr. Robert McClelland stood at head of the gurney as the Parkland doctors attempted to save President Kennedy’s life. There is no more credible witness about the nature of JFK’s head wound.

100 thoughts on “What did the doctor who examined JFK’s head wound say?”

  1. Mrs. Kennedy made the final decision not to have an open casket. I believe it was in Death of a President- Manchester. After seeing the work done by the funeral home- she said he looked like a dummy from “Madam Trusseau (sp?)”.

    (Tom S. notes: Yesterday, this commenter was Milyn …..)

  2. As Basic fact,after the JFK death,only after 3h45m,he write his handwriting report,the cause of JFK’s death is “from a gunshot wound of left temple”(WCE 392,WR527).
    Why so-called “assassination resercher”s 100% belived this careless man?
    His fame reason is convenient for conspiracy.

  3. Knight Publications/David Knight

    Let me first start by saying I have been a researcher of the JFK assassination for the last 26 years and have interviewed several eyewitnesses and others in and around the subject for my videos and soon to be released book. Dr. McClelland is one of the rare individuals that tells it as he remembers it and after several interviews with him his story never changes. I believe what he states and take it as fact. As well as several of my viewers and fellow researchers. We should realize being 50+ years later we need our current and future generations to keep studying and researching of what happened on 11/22/63. And I can’t think of a better way than this interview as well to show to them and the rest of the world that what happened needs answers and needs the truth to come out. It’s never too late for the truth that we seek because we sure didn’t get it with the WC Report. And to the individuals on this post that have stated that Dr. McClelland could not have seen what he says he saw in Trauma Room 1, I ask were you there?
    Thank you

    1. Did you ever ask him if he moved the head?
      Did you ever ask him how he could see the back of the head if it wasn’t moved?
      Ever ask him why they did external cardiac massage if he had a pulse?

      1. I’ve already told you, “Dr.” Photon, the back of the head is curved on its way toward the ears. With the body lying supine, and the back of the head in contact with the gurney, the right rear of the head is plainly visible to a viewer standing beside the body.

        I told you to try this out on a friend. Have you tried it yet?

      2. Dr. McLelland could have simply leaned forward or looked under JFK’s head a bit to see the BOH, without touching or moving his head.

  4. Photon’s comment (above) that “parietal-occipital does not mean the back of the head as illustrated in the “McClelland drawing” is anatomical nonsense. The area depicted in the McClelland drawing certainly includes the occipital and a portion of the parietal areas of the skull. To say otherwise is anatomical ignorance.

    Photon also claims (above) that “there was only one physician at Parkland who actually saw the back of JFK’s head…” Really? So all the Parkland physicians who wrote reports/statements on 11/22/63 describing the rear head wound and who testified before the Warren Commission in early 1964 describing in detail the appearance of the rear head wound were just creating their detailed descriptions of the rear head wound from their imaginations, correct? That’s ludicrous. Photon’s disinformation apparently knows no bounds.

    Others in Dallas also saw the right rear gaping head wound, including Clint Hill and various nurses (Bowron, Henchcliffe, Nelson). Witnesses at Bethesda also saw the same large right rear head wound, including FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill and various others. It was there. It was real. It existed. Those who deny this fact are living in a fantasy world.

  5. Why is it that each and everyone of you “willie wonka” wanna bees can’t come right out and say irrefutably that President Kennedy had been shot from the front…that being said… Call the police and report a murder. As there is no statute of limitations for murder. Use your brains, step up to the plate and become famous for us all….

  6. Photon
    February 15, 2015 at 4:16 pm
    JFK’s head was not on the floor. It was not even on hard surface. It was resting on a gurney pad that was covered with a sheet. The pad is soft, analogous to a mattress ; when the head or any dependent portion of the body comes in contact with it that portion will impress the pad and sink into it slightly, obliterating potential areas that might have been visible on a hard surface. Your analogy is erroneous.
    Had the patient been anybody but JFK he would have been considered DOA and resuscitation efforts would not have ensued; I have made that point repeatedly . The fact that resuscitation probably was less than 15 minutes after JFK reached the trauma room suggest that the outcome was already known before those efforts even began. I doubt that any of the physicians present wanted to declare a President DOA.


    Absolutely THE most pathetic comeback I have seen you present to date, Photon, and clear proof you are scraping the bottom of the ol’ “comeback barrel”.

    Let me guess, the pad was thick like a pillow, and JFK’s head was sunk into it up to the ears, right? What a joke!

    Look here, my friend, I have delivered many patients to the ER in our ambulance, and while the gurney in the ER is not a hard table, it certainly has no give to it, and any pad placed beneath the patient’s head was only there to soak up blood.

    If the patient is conscious, a pillow is placed beneath their head but, if the patient is comatose, or in cardiac arrest, it is more important to have the patient’s head in contact with the gurney, with no thick pad under it.

    Can you guess why?

    1. But Bob! Did you not know that Madam Photon was “taught” critical thinking by Jesuits and became omniprescient in the process?
      She knows all things large and small. And knows enough to know it all.

      1. If Photon is a woman, god help us women. 🙂

        Willy, I’m willing to bet $2 bucks Australian that Photon is a man (that might only be a $1.55 US at the moment but I’m sure will appreciate some day).

        You can use it towards the establishment of your anarchist dream (and perhaps to pay for some leeches to store up in preparation for the return of the bubonic plague).

          1. I read ‘The Lord of the Flies’ in HS Sam.

            Perhaps you should read it again and grasp the underlying message. The plane crash with the students occurred after a nuclear war. This nuclear war was the result of the militaristic society that gained the grip on the human mind that is real and extant to this very day.

            It is after all, in the final analysis that the psychopathic “leaders” who created the “government” on the myth of the Lord of the Flies, that were the villains in the story…
            and are the villains in our story here and now.

          2. Thanks Sam!

            Although he denies it, Photon is Paul May. And he just loves it when you call him Paul. I don’t blame him for denying it though. Have you seen what they say about this Paul May fellow on the internet? 🙂

            We’re still waiting for Willy to provide an example of a anarchist society (?) that actually works. How about it, Willy?

          3. No Willy, “Lord of the Flies” is an ALLEGORY. You see, when people don’t have an established hierarchy and rules, they become a MOB.

            Even hunter-gatherers knew that a leader was important.

            But, as Vanessa asks, please show us an example of a libertarian society that actually works. No excuses, just an example.

          4. Sam, you say that Lord of the Flies was an “ALLEGORY”…

            Yes indeed it was an allegory and as I explained it was an allegory of the larger world that had been brought to annihilation in a nuclear war by their LEADERS.

            There has never been a successful “anarchist society” because there has never been a place unencumbered by outside interference.
            You point to places that have had their societies blown back to the stone ages by the warmongers running this planet, and then pretend that the CHAOS and mayhem is “anarchy”. That is NOT what anarchy is. Anarchy is not a synonym for chaos, although your masters have brainwashed you into believing it.

    2. You claimed that a head resting on a Gurney is analogous to a head lying on a floor.
      Bob, what is that hard plastic thing that they slip under a patient above the gurney pad when the patient starts having cardiac problems? You know, the plastic thing that exactly conforms to the gurney pad? You know, the thing that allows chest compressions without pushing the patient down into the pad? You know, the hard plastic thing designed to make chest compressions effective, without having the patient bounce up and down? You know, the thing needed because the gurney pad is too soft to support effective compressions?

  7. Sax, Willy, Bob,
    I’ve stated previous that JFK may have been the victim of a concealed sniper. I mentioned the box-panel truck as a possible device for this approach. However, it also conceivable that the shot came from the South Knoll car park, with the panel truck obscuring the deed. We may never know, but if the surgeons at Parkland are to be respected, Kennedy’s fatal wound could not have come from the stockade fence, or Oswald’s window. I agree a frangible bullet would have made the wound appear ambiguous, but it certainly did not cross JFK’s midline (agreed, Sherry F.). I think its time to demystify the South Knoll, and its car park (behind the post office), as a logical and probable origin. At the risk of being repetitive, look at the the bystander who dives to the lawn across Elm. again, he’s looking back immediately -not to the stockade fence, but to the are where James Tague was standing. And again, examine the WC reconstruction film with its uninformed(?) posture of JFK once the fatal shot was fired. The stand-in turns right at that moment -not left as was the case. Whether by default or design, the erroneous posture of the JFK stand-in only fueled misinformation as to the kill shots origin. Oswald may very well have participated, and disguised “gunmen” may very well have played a role to further confuse within the “Dealey Triangle”, but that kill shot -coming from the South Knoll- needs to be acknowledged by authorities and the media as “highly probable”. And that’s that.

    1. Michael,
      Several witnesses mention the sound of fireworks. It is not inconceivable that some cherrybombs may have been used as distractions and silenced rifles may have been used for the actual shots.
      Although I think it likely there was a shooter behind the grassy knoll that shot and missed, there is the possibility that this “shooter” lit a large M80 type firecracker instead.

      My take is that the throat and head shot came from the front as per Fiester’s analysis. But I think both Kennedy and Connally were hit by shots from behind as well; the shot in Kennedy’s back, and perhaps several shots that hit Connally from behind.

      1. Willy, Yes, triangulated fire, masked by small explosives. They picked Dealey Plaza for its confusing and disorienting site lines. Oswald was likely in on it, but he realized he was manipulated and figured he’d be dead “sooner” if he didn’t flee. I think Garrison was on the right track, but his idiosyncrasies, and the Yale/CIA-laced media wouldn’t have it (I don’t mean to pick on Establishment WASPs, but let’s not kid ourselves; like the Sicilians, the Irish, and the Jews in Chicago… they had a syndicate too. Today we know it as the National Security State).

  8. Seems there is a (slowly) emerging consensus among researchers that the frontal short was from farther down than the knoll; and slightly higher. In other words, toward the bridge. But where exactly? Where is a location in that vicinity that would allow a shooter not to be seen? On the bridge itself, there were too many spectators. In general this theory makes a lot of sense to me because there are various problems with the knoll and even the fence as a shooting location. Still, there are nagging indicators about the knoll, and the fact that people ran toward it, that “mysterious activity” around the fence was seen by one witness from the rail yard, that people were posing as federal agents there, etc. Currently this is my number one question on this subject. I’d like to see some photos and maps that suggest possible frontal shooting locations.

    1. Most of the frontal shot theories have had to grapple with the problem of alignment from the Grassy Knoll. In other words, it seems impossible for a shot impacting the right front of JFK’s skull to exit the right rear of JFK’s skull. The real problem is the interpretation of the word “exit”.

      While most people will agree the bullet that entered JFK’s head broke up completely in an almost explosive fashion, they still cling to a comic book depiction of a bullet entering at one spot on the skull, and exiting on the opposite side of the skull; perfectly aligned with the path of the bullet from the rifle.

      This may be possible with some types of bullets but, when we enter the realm of hollow point, fragmenting and frangible bullets, everything changes. These bullets break up from the hydraulic pressure exerted on them while travelling through semi-liquid matter, such as brain, and there are often no particles of the bullet left to exit on the opposite side.

      It has been my experience, hunting deer with hollow point .308 calibre bullets, that oftentimes these bullets will enter a skull, break up completely, and not exit at all. It has also been my experience that these bullets will enter a deer’s skull, break up completely, and there will be an “exit” wound nowhere near the expected location.

      The reason for this is that these “exit” wounds, such as the one observed on the right rear of JFK’s head, are not actually a place where a bullet exited. What they actually are is a site where built up hydraulic pressure caused a weak point of the skull to blow out. This hydraulic pressure is caused by the expanded or broken up bullet pushing a wave of matter ahead of it and compressing this matter against the opposite side of the skull. However, since pressure is equal in all directions, there is nothing to stop this pressure from blowing out 90° from the original path of the bullet. I have shot a deer in the side of the skull and seen the top of its head blow off.

      1. Dr. McClelland said that Mrs. Kennedy handed a piece of brain tissue to one of the doctors at Parkland. In the Zapruder film you can clearly see her get out of her seat and crawl to the back of the trunk on the limo, grab something and go back to her seat just before Agent Hill arrives. Since the doctors saw a large blast out wound on the back of his head and his wife picked up some brain matter that was about three feet behind where he was sitting, a shot from the front is the only explanation. Where exactly from the front I don’t know, but it was the front.

  9. The head wound that MCClelland witnessed (among others) did not cross JFK’s midline. Therefore, given the angle of JFK’s body and head, roughly 25 degrees left from profile, the death shot could not have come from the far east window of the 6th floor of the TSBD (from where it is claimed Oswald fired). JFK’s posture, head angle, suggest either a shot (perhaps) from the west window if the TSBD, but much more likey from the South Knoll using some kind of visual subterfuge, including echoes. JMWave had its share of training cams, so not hard to imagine the whole thing being mocked up for practice. Cubans, Texans, Lacosa Nostra, and the WASP Mafia (CIA) had the capacity to plan this.

  10. Larry Schnapf, can you please elaborate? Bugliosi was standing over JFK?… and McLelland is explaining the context decades later?.. What?…

  11. Bugliosi interviewed McClelland in his book. the quotes are worth reading and helps put McClelland’s observations in perspective.

  12. If one reads Humes’s ARRB testimony, one gleans that the answer to the question, was there a sizable hole in the back of JFK’s head, needs to be specific as to time.

    Humes makes clear there was a sizable hole, somewhere. He tells the ARRB he largely closed the hole with bone fragments brought into the autopsy room. Largely but not entirely. He says he closed, or helped to close, the remaining hole with a rubber dam. He refuses to say exactly where the hole (either initial, partially closed, or entirely closed) was located. It’s clear though, from looking at the extant autopsy photos and from how JFK was laid face-up in the burial casket, that the initial and reconstructed hole was in the back of the head.

    So McClelland’s observation of a hole in the back of JFK’s head is completely consistent with what Humes told the ARRB.

    Furthermore, either Humes or Boswell always maintained that the low entry point for a bullet that struck JFK’s skull from the rear was determined when a piece of skull displaying interior beveling was placed into a void of bone in the rear skull and matched with the partial circumference of bullet damage to bone forming the remaining intact skull.

      1. They thought about it and decided not to.
        I think it was a good choice it’s generally better to
        Remember someone as they were alive. I wish they had
        Done an open autopsy with experienced doctors doing real work
        And trustworthy documentation.

        1. Does anyone beside me find it strange that an open casket service would even be considered, considering the amount of damage to the forward part of the skull seen in the autopsy photos? How would they even begin to reconstruct the forward part of his skull, to the point where JFK’s great mop of hair might look natural?

          Considering JFK’s dislie of hats, I doubt that placing a hat on him, in the coffin, would have solved the problem.

          1. Having the coffin open would have shown everybody the complete lack of damage to JFK’s skull, forward of his right ear. Judging from the “mess” the autopsy photos purport to have been there, no amount of reconstruction would have been able to completely hide it.

          2. It seems evident you never watched Six Feet Under, Bob. The show took place in a funeral home, and many of the episodes dealt with people with smashed or destroyed faces, and the challenge faced by Rico in fixing the person’s face. While a work of fiction, the show was based on reality. When one reads the statements of the morticians who attended Kennedy it seems clear they felt they were more than up to the challenge of COSMETICALLY restoring his skull for presentation in an open casket funeral…which is to say that they re-arranged stuff to make sure the hole on the scalp and skull was on the back of the head and buried in a pillow.

        1. It says I have a grasp for the obvious, my friend. It would have looked very suspicious, when the autopsy photos were eventually released, if a large group of people remembered seeing JFK in his coffin with no visible damage to his head.

          Next slur, please?

          1. A large group of people DID see JFK in his coffin with no visible damage to his head, including his wife,his brother, Clint Hill, Godfrey McHugh,the Honor Guard at the White House,FBI agents Sibert and McNeill and others at the autopsy and at the White House. He was cosmetically restored for viewing as part of the embalming process-why do you think Gawler’s was called in to do a ” house call” at Bethesda?
            I just find it unusual that you post on this and other blogs about your interpretations of the wounds, the weapon used,the ammunition , unsubstantiated diagnoses of both JFK and Connolly , the capabilities of Lee Oswald and multiple other topics concerning the assassination completely unaware of probably the most obvious fact witnessed by 170 million Americans that weekend-that JFK’s coffin was closed. It contributed to a widespread sense of disbelief-and terrible rumors that JFK was comatose and institutionalized in Dallas

          2. “widespread..rumors…comatose and institutionalized in Dallas”
            C,mon Photon. Sources, on this and your list of those to view JFK in the coffin.

        2. Photon,

          What does it say about YOUR grasp of the case when you won’t answer the specific questions I have asked about Sibert and his 302 and your selective use of WC “witnesses?”

          1. I stated that Sibert and O’Neill misinterpreted the statements of the autopsy physicians and were unaware of the nature of the throat wound. As there were other witnesses present during the autopsy I do not consider their version of events uniquely significant, particularly when they came to conclusions without knowing what the final autopsy results were.
            By itself Brennan’s testimony is not conclusive, but it certainly is important for several reasons. #1- he saw a shooter firing from the 6th Floor of the TSBD. This was also noted by other witnesses; the wounds as noted at autopsy were consistant with shots coming from that direction -as noted by all of the forensic pathologists who have reviewed the case-save one.#2 he gave a description accurate enough to cause an APB to be issued that caused Tippit to stop a man who fit the description-and got him killed. #3. Of all of the employees of the TSBD Brennan gave an accurate description of the one male who left unexcused and was noted as missing.#4 Brennan accurately noted that the person in the sixth floor window was wearing a different shirt than Oswald was wearing at the time of his apprehension- without knowing that Oswald had changed.
            As witnesses go Brennan appears credible, at least when one considers the mountains of forensic evidence in the case that support his version of events.
            I do not see the same confirmatory evidence supporting the Sibert and O’Neill version of the autopsy.

          2. According to his testimony to the Warren Commission, Howard Brennan told the police that he could not make a positive identification of Oswald. He did identify Oswald as “looking more like a closest resemblance to the man” he saw with a high powered rifle in a southeast window of the Texas School Book Depository, but he had already seen pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald on television

            Also, his description (and other witnesses) of the man in the window did not match Oswald.

          3. Photon,

            So a man, Brennan, standing 100 feet away, and who later wavered about picking out Oswald in a line-up is a credible witness, but two PROFESSIONAL men in their respective fields, both standing no more than 2 feet away from president are not credible? And, the reason Sibert was not called before the WC was the WC had the autopsy results from the real professionals in the field? Have you actually taken the time to watch Sibert’s testimony/ interview on the web? Where he says to Mr. Specter during the WC inquiry that Sibert did not believe anything about the SBT and that there was nothing that could change his mind? Could Mr. Sibert’s stance ONE year after the assassination—not the 50 you use to try and discredit Dr. McClelland—can you allow yourself the slightest chance to believe this could have been the reason he was not called before the WC? Again, your selective use of witnesses makes me wonder how you know who to discredit and who to use as a hero. FYI—the original police broadcast said the suspect might be armed with a 30/30. I don’t believe Oswald was carrying a 30/30 when stopped by Tippit.

          4. Photon,

            If you don’t mind, is there ANY part of the “official” version put forth by the WC that you disagree with, or have trouble believing? Or are you all in?

          5. Brennan appears to be credible? “Crossfire”, Jim Marrs, pg. 26.
            “later that evening Brennan was unable to pick Lee Harvey Oswald out of a police lineup. …it was determined Brennan had poor eyesight, and in fact a close examination of the Zapruder film shows that Brennan was not looking up at the time of the shooting. …
            Furthermore, Brennan’s job foreman, Sandy Speaker told this author
            They took [Brennan] off for about three weeks. I don’t know if they were Secret Service or FBI, but they were federal people. He came back a nervous wreck, and within a year his hair had turned snow white. He wouldn’t talk about [the assassination] after that. They made him say what they wanted him to say.”

          6. You folks seem to be unable to understand why Brennan didn’t pick Oswald out of the lineup.He has described the situation-he was in fear for his life, he did not know whether there were people looking to eliminate witnesses. He also said something very logical. He knew that no matter what he said about the lineup Oswald was going to remain in custody for the Tippit murder. As such, he felt no need to expose himself to possible retribution-at least that first night.
            The Marrs book put out complete fiction about Brennan’s eyesight on Nov. 22, 1963. What ever visual problems he had have been reported to be secondary to a sandblasting accident-which occurred AFTER the assassination.
            If Sibert could not accept the SBT despite the mountains of evidence present initially that supported it, nor could he after the experimental evidence performed since the Warren report that has solidified the SBT I believe that his objectivity must be questioned.

          7. Photon, Brennan also described the man he saw in the window to be wearing “light colored clothes” that witnesses said Oswald did not wear that day. Witnesses also saw two men on the sixth floor just before the shooting.

            The specificity of Howard Brennan’s height and weight description is implausible given that it was from a 120 feet away through a partially open window against a dark background. In his affidavit signed on the 22nd, there is no mention of the man’s height.

            According to the testimony of Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels, all Howard Brennan told him was that the man wore a light jacket and had a slender build. Brennan said nothing about the man’s height or weight or about having seen anyone running from the building.

          8. Photon
            February 17, 2015 at 9:39 am

            We know about that silly claim that even Bugliosi relies upon in defending the failure by Brennan to not I.D. Oswald in that line-up until after he’s briefed/interrogated by the FBI.

            Brennan also couldn’t say if there was a scope on the rifle, yet he claims he recognized Oswald.


        3. Photon,

          So Brennan was “scared” that someone wanted to eliminate witnesses? But, I am guessing, ONLY Brennan was scared about that, correct/ Anyone else that did not want to speak about the assassination until much, much later has to be debunked, correct? Mr. Brennan is the only person who had those fears and his were justified. EVERYONE else that did not want to speak out until years later MUST be debunked because THEY did not speak up immediately. The folks who had their film snatched out of their cameras and never got it back had no reason to be fearful, correct? Two of Kennedy’s aides, Powers and O’Donnell had NO reason to be quiet, even though both admitted much later that the FBI seemed to tell them the official story. I believe it was O’Donnell who told Tip O’Neil that he was made to follow the official line. But they, unlike Brennan had NO reason to be fearful?

          As far as the “mountain of evidence” that you speak of, could you clarify in relation to Mr. Sibert being a questionable witness? You mean the piece of concrete that was patched the day after the assassination, you know the one, the one that the bullet struck and a piece hit Mr. Tague. Is that the evidence you are referring to? The piece of CONCRETE that the FBI cut out, flew to Washington, analyzed it, said it was consistent to Oswald’s bullets and now is LOST? You know, that concrete, it is hard to keep track of. It is only the crime of the century, but somehow it gets misplaced AFTER it is proven by our FBI to be a match? Is that the mountain of evidence that you are referring to?

          Or, are you referring to the gun Oswald used that the FBI had to shim the scope on to make it accurate? The very same gun that the FBI said was prone to frequent jamming during its test firing? Is this the mountain of evidence to which you refer?

          Or are you referring to our CIA, the world’s finest intelligence agency? You know, the agency that took a picture of Oswald entering an embassy in Mexico City, that turned out NOT to be Oswald, and then claimed it had NO idea who the man in the picture was? The man who has NEVER been identified as of 2015? Is that the mountain of evidence you are referring to? The very same CIA that said that its cameras in Mexico City were turned off during this critical period? You know, the very same CIA that now says that some of the transcripts from Mexico City were destroyed per our usual practice. Is this the mountain of evidence to which you refer?

          I usually don’t like to get into the he said/she said type of stuff because it is like a dog chasing its tail. However, your selective use of witnesses and “evidence” is dishonest to the discourse of the debate. I am open to all sides—-I admitted that I can even believe that Oswald fired at JFK. You, however, will not allow yourself to look at this debate except through the eyes that fit your narrative.

          1. Brennan thought he was the only witness who could identify the shooter-which seems logical as it was his description that went over the Dallas PD airways which precipitated the Oswald-Tippit altercation. His concern would be unique and understandable-except to those who can’t accept what would be facing the most important witness in the crime of the century.
            O’Donnell publically contradicted O’Neill’s claims and stated that he accepted the Warren conclusions. Knowing of Tip’s affinity for beverages that generated two-carbon fragments ( and personal information about his trips to the “1789”) I give his claims little credence in this case.
            The Carcano was functional and accurately fired following the assassination.It is ludicrous to continuously claim that shims were required to use the scope when it was dropped by the stairwell with unknown force, probably leading to misalignment . As Oswald shot at “sharpshooter” level in the USMC he was entirely capable of using the iron sights without even needing the scope; he never needed a scope in the Marines to make shots much more difficult than the 88 yard easy shot he had with JFK.
            Are you claiming that Oswald never went to Mexico City?

          2. “Brennan thought he was the only witness who could identify the shooter-which seems logical as it was his description that went over the Dallas PD airways which precipitated the Oswald-Tippit altercation.”~Photon

            Not so Photon, that was not Brennan’s description of Oswald. It was a plant by Angleton in his attempt to ferret out the mole he thought was ensconced in the Mexican office of CIA. Whoever came up with the description would be revealed.
            And they were! The contingent in Dallas PD came up with that description.

            First news flash:

            On 11/22/63, at 12:30 pm Central Time, President Kennedy was fatally struck by rifle fire to the head. At 12:43 pm, a sighting was alleged by a “white man” to Inspector Herbert Sawyer, and it immediately went out over the police radio. The description was similar to the “Robert Webster description” in the 10/10 memo sent to the Mexico City station: A man who was “5 foot 10 and 165 pounds” was seen firing from the Texas School Book Depository.
            The witness had no description of his clothing, which makes no sense. When a witness sees a man firing prone from a window ledge at waist height, the most important details would be provided from his clothing. How could anyone estimate the shooter’s height or weight, when his entire body was not even visible?
            Sawyer turned the witness over to an unknown sheriff’s deputy on the scene. Neither the supposed witness or the deputy were ever heard from again.


          3. Photon,

            Unlike you, I don’t know the truth concerning Oswald and Mexico City. You see, that is the difference between you and I. Since there never was a real attempt to discern what happened in Dallas, I don’t know. I do know this: I have been to Dallas on four different occasions. I have been in the TSBD, I have been to Oswald’s boarding house, the Texas Theater, the whole works. I have read over 50 books and I have several films. I have tried over the past 30 years to discern the truth. I have been hampered by the very agencies that you believe in so very dearly. I will go to my grave not knowing the truth. That used to bother me greatly, but as I have aged, I have kinda made peace with that fact.

            So, to answer your question directly, I believe that Oswald was in Mexico City. However, and you did not answer my question directly, the CIA released a picture that you and I both know was not Oswald. You also know that the CIA has YET to identify that man. Keep in mind, this is the finest intelligence gathering agency in the world. Can you explain the discrepancy in that “piece of evidence?” How can the world’s finest intelligence agency produce a picture that does not look ANYTHING like Oswald, never identify the man in the picture they did produce to this day, and then expect me to believe in ANYTHING they have to offer on this case? Care to comment on that?

            Care to also comment on the chunk of concrete that was patched, cut out, flown to Washington, analyzed, “proven to match Oswald” and then promptly LOST? That kind of work done by the FBI inspires confidence in them from you? If so, you have much more faith in the FBI than I do.

            Just for the record, Oswald did not drop his gun forcefully as you indicate. The Dallas police who found the rifle said that it looked as if it was carefully placed. If I remember correctly, it took a while to find his rifle. That, to me, does not sound like someone who dropped his rifle with such force as to cause the scope alignment issue. Of course, one has to have faith in the DPD, and from what I have read their work that day was hardly what I would call first rate. I believe it was Chief Curry who said in a 1977 interview that “no one has been able to place a gun in Oswald’s hands yet.” I may have not got his quote verbatim, but the gist was clear. He remained unclear as to Oswald’s role that day.

            Care to have an open, honest debate Photon? Or do you wish to continue to pick and choose which witness and evidence to give sainthood to and which to “debunk?” Your move.

    1. Jonathan,
      It must be remembered that this large wound was in the Occipital/Parietal, which although the video keeps flashing that cartoon drawing that supposedly represents what it looks like, is not consistent with even the description even McClellan gives. He reaches back with his hand to show where the wound was, notice his hand extends to the top of the head. This wound was part of massive fracture of the entire right hemisphere of the skull. It isn’t just a hole surrounded by a pristine head as shown in that drawing. In the autopsy photos, it can be seen that the entire right top of the head is blasted and liquefied brain is protruding in a gelatin like mess.

    2. Not correct. Page 70 of his testimony : ” We’ll, the most obvious thing was a defect of the right parietal area.”
      How do you get “back of the head ” from that?

  13. Dr. Mc Clelland seems like such a nice man. Unpretentious, no “agenda”. I had the privilege of meeting him for just a minute before a presentation on 11/22/63 a couple of years ago. He introduced himself as “Bob” Mc Clelland and shook my hand.
    Maybe that’s why I was picked first when Q & A time came around.
    My question was “Your colleague Dr. Perry stated I think 3 times on the afternoon of the assassination to reporters the neck wound was one of entry. Do you think maybe someone convinced him to change his story by the time he testified to the Warren Commission?” His simple “yes” brought an audible gasp from some members of the audience.

    1. Much of this interview is composed of his interpretations of events that he did not directly observe. For instance, his description of the anterior neck wound is based totally on his interpretation of what others said it looked like, not what he saw. His interpretation of what Clark and Perry said in their press conference was not based on direct observation ( he wasn’t there) but on viewing it later-and the observations of others.His claim that the Carcano could not be operated fast enough to account for the shooting sequence is simply wrong-and based not on any personal observation but what he had been told by others.
      Specifically , his quote that Dr. Carrico was the first MD to see the President is wrong.
      Specifically he stated that 7 or 8 minutes into the resuscitative effort Dr Clark told them to stop because his cardiac electrical activity had ceased and he ” flatlined” but that prior to that he had ” good electrical activity” and even had a pulse and was making breathing efforts. That statement is contradicted by every other MD in the room and by the actions taking-specifically the initiation of cardiac massage . He doesn’t mention at all that they were preparing to open the chest to do open massage -an action totally inconsistent with JFK having cardiac electrical activity and a pulse. Again, the drawing portrayed is a view that Dr. McClelland could not have seen as he never moved the head from its position resting on the EOP.
      The “bagman” was in the ER during the procedure? He remembers that very distinctly. Yet CWO Gearhart, the bagman for the day never went into the ER and went to be near LBJ soon after arriving at Parkland. ” He had a briefcase handcuffed to his arm.” ” Someone said ‘here’s the bagman’ “. Except it wasn’t a briefcase- it was a 40 lb. suitcase. It wasn’t handcuffed to Gearhart’s wrist. No one present would have said ” the bagman’s here” even if he was-standard protocol was not to breach security. This passage is an embellishment -whether from something Dr. McClelland read about the “football” or what someone told him about the nuclear code officer , the fact is that what he described did not happen.

      1. Photon,

        How about FBI agent Sibert who was 2 feet from JFK’s body during the autopsy and filed the famous 302 report that was hidden from view until found by Paul Hoch that indicates pretty much what Dr. Mc Clelland observed, who was also 18 inches away from JFK’s head? The same agent who said that Arlen Specter was a “damn liar?” Is he also wrong? Did he not observe what he wrote? Can you explain how you and MrMcAdams will give WC witnesses like Howard Brennan every square inch of the truth that they observed as being accurate, but for anyone else there is always a reason why what they saw is open to question? As you know, Brennan stated in his testimony that he saw LHO “standing up” as he fired the shots, which we all know could not have happened as the position of the window would not physically allow that to happen? Care to comment?

      2. Run in circles and pick away at every little point, Photon. But, of course, don’t address the obvious, that McLelland had a perfectly good view of the wound in the right rear of JFK’s head.

        Do you think the back of the skull is perfectly flat, and that when the skull is lying on a table, the entire back of the head is in contact with the table?? Of course not! The centre of the back of the head will contact the table, in the supine posistion, but the skull is round, and curves on its way toward the ear.

        Anyone can try this at home. Get someone to lie on their back, with their head touching the floor, and put yourself in McLelland’s position. Just as he claimed, you have a perfect view of the right rear of JFK’s head.

        AND, unless someone was holding JFK’s head in the “C-spine” spinal immobilization position (and there is no record of this), is anyone really naive enough to think JFK’s head stayed perfectly rigid in one position? All it would take is a slight movement to the left, and the BOH wound would have been visible to a great many more people beside McLelland.

        Photon and his friends are flogging a dead horse here and they know it.

        1. If you can’t accept that McClelland has admitted that he never moved the head nor turned JFK over it is easy to persist in believing that he could see what it was physically impossible for him to see.
          If you can’t accept that other MDs in the room were doing external cardiac massage and preparing to crack the chest it is easy to believe McClelland’s claim that JFK had a pulse and cardiac electrical activity up until they terminated resuscitative efforts.
          If you can’t accept that CWO Gearhart stated that he never entered the treatment room and there is documentation of his whereabouts during the resuscitative effort it is easy to accept McClelland’s inaccurate description of the nuclear code bag and public colloquial description of ” bagman”.
          If you can’t accept that this man’s recollections during this interview were 50 years old and colored by multiple years of exposure to conspiracy factoids ( the Carcano firing myth for one) it is easy to believe that everything he says is accurate.
          If you can’t accept that every other MD who attended to JFK in the Parkland Treatment Room ( save the previously impeached Crenshaw) supported the Warren Commission conclusions it is easy to believe that Dr. McClelland is the only accurate witness and his conclusions must be correct.
          If you can’t accept that even the attending MD who declared the President dead stated during a press conference on that same day that the ER interpretations of the bullet wounds were rushed, incomplete and that the wounds could only be fully explored and evaluated at autopsy it is easy to believe that ER physician wound interpretations are infallible ,accurate and more reliable than autopsy interpretations by board certified anatomic and forensic pathologists.
          If you can’t accept that the real facts in this case have been documented,examined and reproduced by experimental studies it is easy to accept a conspiracy conclusion.
          Particularly if you are unwilling to seek the truth when it contradicts what you WANT to believe.

          1. Photon

            Have you tried the experiment I outlined? Get someone to lie on his back with the back of his head touching the floor. See? Only a tiny portion of the back of the head will be in contact with the floor, and the right rear portion of the head will be quite visible, as it curves on its way to the right ear.

            How could McLelland have NOT seen the wound in the back of JFK’s head?

            Now, here’s something else for you to think over. If JFK’s gaping head wound HAD been on the top of his head, just as shown by the WC and visible to anyone within ten feet of JFK’s head, do you seriously mean to tell me surgeons of this calibre would have even BEGUN resuscitation attempts?

            Keep flogging that dead horse.

          2. JFK’s head was not on the floor. It was not even on hard surface. It was resting on a gurney pad that was covered with a sheet. The pad is soft, analogous to a mattress ; when the head or any dependent portion of the body comes in contact with it that portion will impress the pad and sink into it slightly, obliterating potential areas that might have been visible on a hard surface. Your analogy is erroneous.
            Had the patient been anybody but JFK he would have been considered DOA and resuscitation efforts would not have ensued; I have made that point repeatedly . The fact that resuscitation probably was less than 15 minutes after JFK reached the trauma room suggest that the outcome was already known before those efforts even began. I doubt that any of the physicians present wanted to declare a President DOA.

          3. Photon,

            Can you answer my question directly, please? If you want to discredit a man who was 18 inches from JFK’s head while he was in the ER, please feel free to do so. If you want to make comments about bags and guys with briefcases that have NOTHING to do with JFK’S WOUNDS, please feel free. However, what will you say about FBI agent Sibert and his 302 report AND the fact that he called Arlen Specter a “damn liar?” Sibert’s testimony is on the web—look for yourself. Keep in mind, before you gear up the debunking machine of his character, he worked for the VERY people you are convinced are telling us the truth. Keep in mind that Sibert was 2 feet from JFK during the autopsy. His 302 clearly indicates a wound in the back of the head AND it also says there was a wound in the back that could be probed and the end of the wound could be felt by the end of the finger.
            Also, how do you and the WC defenders decide which witness you are going to leave alone and which witness you are going to debunk? What about Howard Brennan and his story? 100 feet away and he says LHO fires at JFK while standing? That could not and did not happen due to the window. Why do you believe what he said when was 100 feet away, but not somebody who was 2 feet away? You must get a little exhausted trying to decide who to defend and who to debunk. Care to comment?
            Also, can you explain why some witnesses were called before the WC like Brennan, and others like Holland and Sibert were not? Don’t you think and wouldn’t you want as complete and thorough investigation as your tax dollars could afford?

          4. The 302 was written by two non-medical professionals with incomplete facts and misinterpretations of what the pathologists said. It takes uninformed speculation during the procedure ( eg, the back missile falling out during cardiac massage) and presents it as medical fact.Despite being written 3 days after the event the authors did not have all of the available facts. As the Commission had the autopsy report and the testimony of the actual participants it seems understandable why the agents were not called to testify. Apparently Sibert and O’Neill felt that their impressions as peripheral observers were more valuable than they actually were.
            The doctor who was 18 inches from JFK’s head in the ER missed a potentially fatal wound in the back. He missed an entrance wound in the cowlick. He saw cardiac activity and pulses not detected by any other physicians in the room. He described a throat wound that he had never seen. He clearly describes an individual being in the treatment room who wasn’t there-including a description of the “football” popular in fiction but not in accord with the actual facts. The accuracy of his perception of events that happened over a 12-15 minute period 50 years previously must be evaluated in light of the contradictions that I have noted.

          5. @Photon: “JFK’s head was not on the floor. It was not even on hard surface. It was resting on a gurney pad that was covered with a sheet. The pad is soft, analogous to a mattress ; when the head or any dependent portion of the body comes in contact with it that portion will impress the pad and sink into it slightly, obliterating potential areas that might have been visible on a hard surface. Your analogy is erroneous.”

            JFK had to be taken from the limousine, where his head was not at the time resting on any surface, and Audrey Bell saw it, as did Kellerman and others. The idea that nobody saw the back of JFK’s head until it got to Bethesda is ABSURD. Add to that the fact that when the back portion of someone’s head is blown off, it tends to get messy. I doubt the doctors at Parkland would have not noticed a fairly obviously messed up “soft gurney pad” around Kennedy’s head—not a clean pillow. The bending of fact here is analogous to that practiced by Arlen Specter when he bent the laws of physics to create his single bullet bedtime story.

          6. Dr. McClelland’s 50 year old recollection of the location and appearance of the right rear head wound corresponds with his contemporaneous observations memorialized in his written report of 11/22/63 and his early 1964 Warren Commission testimony. Other Parkland doctors also wrote reports on 11/22/63 and testified to the Warren Commission in early 1964 that there was a large, gaping, avulsive wound to the right rear of his head, the occipito/parietal portion. Dr. Carrico described the head wound as a “large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area…5-7 centimeters in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue.” (VI WCH 6). Dr. Perry described a “large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent…” (III WCH 372). Dr. Clark described the head wound as “a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed.” (VI WCH 20).Dr. Peters testified that “in the right occipitalparietal area …there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area.” (VI WCH 71). Dr. Jones testified that “there was a 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.” (VI WCH 53-54). These sworn statements of other Parkland doctors corroborate Dr. McClelland’s observations of the right rear head wound. To ignore the clear corroborating testimony of these trained observers is to ignore reality. Even if Dr. McClelland were mistaken about certain other issues unrelated to the President’s head wound, his observations of the location, nature, and extent of the head wound are precisely in accord with the other Parkland physicians. They all saw the wound and described it in the same way.

          7. There is a logical inconsistency in your comments, Photon. While you are quite correct to point out that there are problems with McClelland as a witness, and that autopsies are performed because the impressions and recollections of emergency room physicians are not to be relied upon, you indicated that among McClelland’s mistakes was his failure to note an entrance wound in the cowlick. No such wound was noted by anyone else at Parkland. No such wound was noted by anyone at Bethesda, either. The cowlick entry only entered the record, moreover, after the Johnson justice department came to the conclusion the entry wound by the EOP described in the autopsy report was problematic for the single-assassin conclusion. Then BOING a secret panel decided that oh yeah the bullet entered at the top of the head. Most of the doctors to view the autopsy materials in recent years have decided they were full of beans. So, yeah, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say the observations of the autopsy doctors trump the conclusions of the Parkland witnesses without acknowledging that they also trump the conclusions of the Clark Panel et al.

          8. Photon,

            So, the 302 was written by two non-medical professionals? Hmmm, that is odd. They were writing what was being said by the MEDICAL professionals that were performing the autopsy. Also, remember, you are now calling into question two men who worked for the VERY government that you defend. And, please correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t this Humes first autopsy involving gunshot wounds? If the 302 is not a big deal, why did the government try to keep it hidden from public view? In fact, if the JFK case is a slam dunk, why have the CIA AND THE FBI refused to release all of the documents back in 1964, when the WC report was released? Please don’t say national security, because according to you, Oswald was a “lone nut” bent on making a name for himself. Where is the need for national security if Oswald is a “deranged loner?” Again, you pick and choose which government report to believe without question and which one to debunk based on the narrative that the government WILL always tell us the truth. Care to answer my question about the flimsy story told by Mr. Brennan?

          9. Except that they didn’t-and parietal -occipital does not mean the back of the head as illustrated in the “McClelland drawing”.
            There was only one physician at Parkland who actually saw the back of JFK’s head, the only one that had a non-obstructed view from the perspective of the “McClellend drawing”. He is never mentioned in conspiracy notes, his name is virtually anathema in conspiracy circles-precisely because his description of the head wound is virtually identical to both the autopsy photos and the post-mortem documented findings. He was not part of the resuscitative team and his recollections were not clouded by the confusion and chaos in and swirling about a trauma room filled with too many people trying to resuscitate a man they already knew was dead.

          10. Photon, what would be your explanation for Clint Hill’s testimony concerning the head wound? Are you going to argue he didn’t get a close enough look at it while lying on top of the President on the drive to Parkland?

            “the right rear portion of his head was missing” adding that there was “one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.” — Clint Hill, WC testimony

          11. Good points by Pat Speer (Feb 16/15).

            Dr. McLelland’s famous BOH sketch is not a figment of his imagination.

            I still believe the notch on the back of JFK’s head in the Moorman photo (it seems triangular here) confirms what he saw.


            Note: If you click ‘view full size image’ within TinyPic, it will zoom for a better view.

      3. So, Dr. McClelland’s statement that JFK had a pulse “is contradicted by every other MD in the room.” Really? Then why did Dr. Kemp Clark write, in a summary statement that he signed, that “a pulse palpable in both the carotid and femoral arteries was obtained.” This summary statement appears in the Warren Report, Appendix VIII, p. 518. Further, Dr. Malcolm Perry testified under oath to the ARRB at his 1998 deposition that “[i]n the absence of a pulse and the absence of detectable pressures and everything, had he not had that, I would not have done the trach.” (p. 39). So, if there had been no pulse, Dr. Perry said that he would not have performed the tracheotomy, but he did do one so there was a pulse, just as Dr. McClelland stated.

        Also, Dr. McClelland’s statement that Dr. Carrico was the first doctor to see JFK in the ER is correct. Dr. Carrico himself testified to the Warren Commission that he was the first doctor to arrive at the ER to see JFK. (III WCH 359).

        Additionally, as Dr. McClelland explained to the ARRB under oath at his 1998 deposition, the “McClelland drawing” of the rear head wound was not intended to depict the entire head wound: “…what we were trying to depict here was what the posterior part of the wound looked like. In other words, this is not the entire wound. It’s simply the posterior part of it and what I thought of as the critical part of it at the time and still do.” (p. 45). The head wound was such that the doctors could look at it and clearly see what the wound looked like. Dr. Peters testified in his ARRB deposition in 1998 that Dr. Pepper Jenkins looked at the head wound and advised the others that before any heroic open-chest heart massage was attempted they better step up and look at JFK’s head wound. Dr. Peters testified that “and so at that point I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked into the President’s head and I reported to the Warren Commission that there was about a seven centimeter hole in the occipitoparietal area [and] that there was obviously quite a bit of brain missing.”

        So, Photon, you’re wrong about the pulse, wrong about Dr. Carrico, and wrong about the “impossibility” of seeing the rear head wound as JFK lay supine.

        1. In Clarke’s Warren testimony he stated that he felt for a carotid pulse-there was none. They obtained pulses with CARDIAC MASSAGE- what you expect with adequate CPR. ” I did not detect a heartbeat and was told that there was no BP available”- Perry’s description of his initial evaluation of JFK to the Warren commission in 1964. He further stated that after completing the tracheostomy they began cardiac massage – why would they do that if he had a pulse?
          William Midgett was an ER resident who helped remove JFK from the limo and placed him on the gurney. He was the last MD to see the back of JFK’s head until the autopsy.
          Jenkins’ statement confirms the absence of cardiac activity. His description of the head wound was made without moving the head. Peters statement was made without moving the head-and is consistent with the autopsy photos. You neglect to mention that Jenkins,Peters and Perry all supported the conclusions of the Warren report. They also were reluctant to publically comment on the case, still reflecting the patient confidentiality approach doctors are supposed to have,even for deceased patients. That confidentiality concern that physicians are supposed to maintain seems lacking in the two Parkland doctors that have publically supported a conspiracy. That in itself leads me to question aspects of their recollections, even not considering historic facts that contradict those recollections.

          1. The rear of the head autopsy photo does not show a seven centimeter hole in the occipitoparietal skull, it shows no large hole at all. Peters’ ARRB testimony is not consistent with this photo. The Warren Commission testimony and the contemporaneous written reports of the Parkland physicians describing with a great deal of specificity the location, size, and nature of the large, gaping, avulsive defect on the right rear of JFK’s head was based upon their observations of the head. Your claim that no ER doctor saw the back of JFK’s head is tantamount to claiming that they all fabricated their detailed descriptions of the wound, a contention which strains credulity. Your claim elsewhere that there was no large defect in JFK’s head is also refuted by the statements and testimony of medical professionals such as several Parkland nurses, and trained professionals like SS Agent Hill, FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill, and SS agents Kellerman and Greer, all of whom testified as to their observations of a large, essentially circular hole in the right rear of JFK’s head.

          2. Let me see now. You have a concern with doctors breaching patient confidentiality, but only when the doctors don’t agree with the WC? Every doctor involved in this case has breached patient confidentiality.

          3. I am convinced that the confusion arises here from the continuing slipping between the specific term “Occipital-Parietal” to the vague “back of the head”. Both sides to this debate slide back and forth with this language.

            I also think the rather cartoon like rendering of the wound (referred to as the “McClellan Drawing”) has planted a false perception in people’s minds.

            The reason the wound was so readily visible at Parkland is because it was in face in the Occipital-Parietal, higher than the drawing, which was NOT drawn by Dr. McClellan, but by a staff artist on the House Committee going by verbal testimony, and drawing from his/her imagination what that might look like.

            That the head was utterly shattered in the Occipital-Parietal, is obvious in both the Parkland testimonies, and the autopsy photographs and X-rays.

            The controversy can be resolved by noting the placement of the hands of the Parkland witnesses which does NOT agree with the cartoon like drawing but in fact covers the Occipital-Parietal region, and does not isolate it to the lower Occipital as the drawing does.

            Given this explanation, such a wound would be readily observable with the head resting on the Occipital-Protuberance.

        1. Actually I don’t. I try to show the inconsistencies in his story when confronted with facts . One of those facts is that despite the perceptions of many conspiracy theorists the Parkland doctors did only a cursory exam doing an intense but brief resusative effort. It is questionable how cose they actually evaluated the head wound, as Jenkins had to tell the rest how bad the head wound actually was.

          1. Except that after the President was pronounced dead there was no longer any need for resuscitation. There was time at that point, such as when Crenshaw wrapped the head to put into the casket, to see the head wound without having to try to save the life. JFK was dead at that point.

            That was easy. You want to try again?

          2. Crenshaw never wrapped the head. He left with McClelland after JFK was pronounced dead.
            McClelland has stated that all of the doctors left the treatment room after they stopped resuscitation efforts. Nobody hung around to do any further efforts at examination. That has been confirmed by the other doctors present.
            The fact that they never got chest tubes into the pleural space after making skin incisions should suggest how rushed and incomplete the examination was and how during the stress of the moment routine medical procedures were not done successfully.
            They did an incomplete exam.
            Their wound perceptions were rushed, inaccurate and based on seeing a corpse lying supine with brain tissue, scalp, hair, dura mater all draining down the back of JFK’s head. Even with the aggressive attempts at resuscitation nobody even appreciated the extent of the head wound until Dr. Jenkins advised the other physicians that the head wound was not survivable. If Dr McClelland had such a great view why didn’t he attempt to stop the thoracotomy? Why did he claim 50 years later that resuscitation was stopped because JFK had lost his pulse and that at that point he lost electrical activity- when other doctors had been doing closed heart massage for some time prior to stopping the efforts?
            I personally think that none of the ER physicians got a good look at the head wound except Jenkins and Clark. Oh they saw the effects of the wound but never actually examined it, shaved it,probed it, x-rayed it,etc.
            It didn’t matter-he was DOA and everybody knew it, including medical staff outside the treatment room-one of whom told Eddie Barker at the Trade Mart and was the first indication that JFK was dead-if you discount Hill’s statement to Smith when the UPI reporter reached Parkland.

  14. Dr. McClelland states, at 6:55 of the video, that as he stood by JFK’s head, with JFK in a supine position, he saw the right half of JFK’s cerebellum slowly fall out of the hole in the right rear of JFK’s head onto the gurney. This observation is fatal to the claim asserted by Photon and others that there was no large hole in the occipital/parietal portion of JFK’s head, which claim is generally based upon the autopsy photo ostensibly depicting the rear of JFK’s head in a virtually undamaged condition. The cerebellum is located under the rear of the cerebrum at the base of the brain, adjacent to the brain stem. For the right half of the cerebellum to be falling from JFK’s head unassisted, as observed by Dr. McClelland, it would have to be coming from a fairly large hole in the right occipital portion of the skull. It could not be falling from the top of the skull, the temporal area of the skull, or the anterior portion of the parietal area of the skull. The cerebellum is easily distinguishable from the cerebrum to a trained surgeon like Dr. McClelland, as its appearance is markedly different. This observation again confirms the descriptions by virtually all of the Parkland physicians on 11/22/63 of a large gaping avulsive defect or hole in the right rear of JFK’s head, demonstrating a shot from the right front.

  15. He has lucidly described what he saw at the head of the gurney that day. This is documented as a picture for those unsure of what he meant. He has also been honest enough to admit that they thought the neck wound was an entrance wound, and that they missed the back wound. Given the circumstances: their primary goal being to keep the president alive; deal with the most acute needs of the president at the time; the fact that the president died; and the great haste with which the Secret Service demanded custody of the president’s body, it is not surprising that a more complete assessment of the wounds had not been attained before the body was removed.
    McClellan’s account appears eminently more credible than the appraisals presented by the Secret Service/military intelligence/FBI/CIA/Congressional/WC six-way obfuscation coalition.

  16. I do think that McClellan’s guess that the head wound bullet entered high in the right forehead is mistaken and unaccountable. The entrance wound was in the right temporal-parietal.

  17. This was an incredible interview. At the conclusion when the doctor says that Americans were more trusting of their leaders in 1963 than they are now, I would say yes, but add that Indians, who got promises continually broken by the US government throughout the history of this country were quicker to see how one shouldn’t blindly trust our leaders. I guess it has taken the whites in this country a bit longer to reach that conclusion.

    We need to hold our elected and unelected officials to the fire, and certainly we can’t just put faith in our unelected agency officials to do the right thing without public oversight. With respect to the JFK case, this means those CIA files still being held in secret need to be shown to the American people. We are supposed to have a free society, and we should not be treated like some conquered Native Americans or black slaves by our government.

  18. Okay, Photon and McAdams.

    Your cute attempts to discredit Drs. McClelland and Crenshaw has been shown to be a massive FAIL.
    This testimony by Dr. McClelland shows your smear attempts to be completely, utterly bogus.

    I think most open-minded and intelligent people will find Dr. McClelland’s very frank and open discussion to be quite credible, certainly more so than your second-hand CIA cover story has been.

  19. This interview with McClelland clears up something for me. That is the size of the slit said to be too gaping for a tracheostomy. As he McClelland explains, it was more than simply that, but an exploratory procedure to check for wounded blood vessels. This would account for the larger size of the incision that we see in the photos from the autopsy.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top