Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?

[Cliff Varnell]

If you wish to make a list of the times I've abused my authority, I suspect a large number of us would find it most enlightening.

First of all, I note the "fake tan" applied to your photo! Just kidding, of course--but I couldn't resist.

Even though he lives in LA -- I think Pat's a San Francisco Giant's fan! Sure looks like Giant's war paint in that photo!

Edited January 20, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Greg Burnham]

The nature of obstruction of justice in a capital crime involving the complicity of Intelligence Agencies pre-supposes that the perpetrators are quite capable of comprehending the fact that obfuscation is as useful a tool as is out right deceit; that the act of "muddying the waters" serves more to slow down the process of justice than does perjury; that throwing a "curve ball barely missing the outside corner of the plate" is more effective than deliberately hitting the batter in the face with the ball.

On second glance, I find this to be one of the more remarkable things I've ever read. Greg is suggesting that evidence suggestive of more than one shooter--such as a 14cm measurement on the autopsy face sheet and a back wound at T1 on the autopsy photos--could be faked evidence to make us think there was only one shooter. Fascinating.

I suppose by this same token we can suspect that the unidentified prints in the sniper's nest were added just to, y'know, make sure we believed Oswald pulled the trigger.

I am not intending to change the subject with this post and I respect thread integrity, so please consider what I am about to post in the context of my reply directly to Pat's post:

Have you ever wondered why the Zapruder film has been used by both LN and CT advocates to demonstrate their respective positions? For those who believe that there was a shot from the front, it is quite obvious why they believe that the Zapruder film supports their position, as it apparently demonstrates what anyone would expect to see on a film of such an event -- that is, an event in which the head shot results in a motion best described as: "back and to the left" -- consistent with a shot from the right/front of JFK. However, the Warren Commission also relied on the Zapruder film and yet came to an idiotically contrived interpretation of what it apparently does NOT depict, namely, that all shots originated from the right rear of JFK at a downward trajectory.

So, when considering the case for Zappy film alteration, the argument of Z-film apologists has been (and seems logical) that the evidence of a frontal shot most certainly would have been removed if alteration had been accomplished. If not, why alter the film in the first place?

Now, the above is NOT meant to start a discussion about the Zapruder film here. It is meant to suggest yet another example of the effectiveness of producing a "muddy water" environment...at the very least. If there were "elements" of the film that MUST be removed (such as a complete stop, etc) that is one thing, but there perhaps were elements of the film that could NOT be removed (read:hidden) OR there was a reason to leave them intact for "other" purposes.

Never under-estimate these guys. They will do ANYTHING.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

I thought I had put this question to rest long ago. Did you somehow miss my article,

"Reasoning about Assassinations", which I presented at Cambridge and published

in an international, peer-reviewed journal? It can be downloaded here by using this link

http://assassinationscience.com/ReasoningAboutAssassinations.pdf and is also at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/reasoning-about-assassinations.html

So why don't you go through my argument, step by step, and explain exactly what you

think I have wrong. Unless I have made a mistake, there is no support for your position.

Jim

Cliff: Vince Bugliosi and John McAdams put the wound at T1. That should tell you something.

Pat: It tells me you're more obsessed with being arbitrary than being correct.

This tells me you have no rebuttal.

Yeah, they SAY it's at C7/T1,

No, T1 works for them both.

but they then turn around and claim it was WELL above the throat wound, which means they think the throat wound was around T3--which puts it pretty much on the sternum. ALL one needs to do to destroy their defense of the SBT is to accept the wound was at T1 or even C7/T1 and then point out that THEY have moved the throat wound to an impossible location to fit their wacky theory.

So what if T1 doesn't work for the SBT, how is that an argument for the wound being at T1?

Once the T3 back wound is pointed out, the discussion of trajectory is over. There is no need for Pat Speer and David Mantik to thrill us with their acumen and explain why the T1 location doesn't work for the SBT.

We know that without un-necessary explication.

Pat, you refuse to face the actual physical evidence, the consensus witness testimony, and the properly prepared medical evidence -- why?

Because your pet theory destroys the SBT? So what? Who cares about what your theory is if you can't support it with facts?

Your claiming that the wound was at T3,

Stop.

This is where the rabbit hole express ends.

It is not my claim that the wound was at T3, Pat. That is where the bullet defects in the clothing put it, the consensus witness testimony, and the properly prepared medical documentation including the autopsy face sheet, Burkley's death certificate, and the FBI autopsy report.

All you can cite for your case are: improperly produced, obviously deficient autopsy photos for which there is no established chain of possession; two different locations for the back wound listed in the final autopsy report, neither location properly recorded; and measurements recorded in pen on the autopsy face sheet.

According to proper autopsy protocol the face sheet needed to be filled out in pencil.

That portion of the face sheet that was properly recorded in pencil was the T3 or lower dot on the posterior figure in the diagram, which was signed off in pencil as "verified."

The properly prepared medical evidence corroborates the consensus witness testimony and the physical evidence of the clothing defects

Pat, the fact that John F. Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy that was covered-up at the highest levels of the US Government doesn't appear to have informed your analyses.

But go ahead, as you were saying?

Your claiming that the wound was at T3, however, creates the impression it is YOU who is moving the wounds around to debunk their theory, and lets them off the hook in the eyes of those not convinced by your claim.

Excuse me? This makes absolutely no sense, Pat. Who cares what impression I make?

What do I have to do with the facts of the case? If people lack the ability to discern the difference between properly prepared evidence and improperly prepared evidence -- who cares? It's not my problem.

Pointing out the obvious doesn't leave anyone off the hook. You let Nutters off the hook by buying into their high back wound nonsense, and by YOUR obsessive championing of the "obviously deficient" autopsy photos.

But you and I have noting to do with the historical facts of the matter. You don't appear concerned with historical fact at all, but rather with the rhetorical back and forth with your Nutter adversaries.

Cliff: So why, Pat, do you parade this trash like its Macy's on Thanksgiving?

Pat: Because, like it or not, many people are convinced CTs are wacky, and I delight in showing them instances where our "wackiness" is not only supported by the official record, but where it is LNs such as McAdams and Bugliosi who are truly wacky.

I don't get this at all. Who cares if some people think WC critics are "wacky," how does that enter into the weighing of evidence?

I hate to break it to you Pat, but what you call the "official record" isn't supported by the very same people who wrote it!

The HSCA panel based their SBT on measurements taken from a photograph they admitted was "difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements." They based their conclusions on material they condemned as having "obvious deficiencies."

One the the guys who signed off on the official autopsy report, Dr. Finck, condemned the way the back wound was listed in the final autopsy report.

"JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound."

And yet here you are, repeating Lone Nutter talking points with no regard for the historical truth of the matter.

On a personal note, I enjoy tweaking you just as much as you enjoy tweaking McAdams.

In my book, you guys are on the same side.

This says more about you than it does about me. For some reason you think it is better to push a losing argument against the SBT than a winning one. Your argument for T3 necessitates that both the autopsy photos and autopsy measurements are false. Few will buy this, particularly in that the photos and measurements are strong evidence against the SBT. It makes little sense, after all, for the big bad evil conspirators to fake the measurements and fake the photos and be so tentative about it that their fakes measurements and photos still suggest a conspiracy.

But, punk rocker that you are, you'd rather tweak people with whom you mostly agree than make a lot of sense.

Good luck on that.

Edited January 21, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[David Lifton]

Quote DiEugenio:

"Like Gary [Aguilar], who I have had many discussions on the subject with, I believe this gaping, avulsive exit hole in the back of the skull existed. It was seen at both Parkland and Bethesda, as Gary has proven."

FYI: Gary Aguilar has "proven" no such thing.

There is a huge difference between the hole in the head seen at Parkland and the huge hole reported at Bethesda--by about 400%. This is all discussed at length in BEST EVIDENCE, Chapter 13, devoted to the head wounding. Aguilar tries to lump them together, blurring the difference.

Why, I don't know--but its a massacre of the data, as it really is.

When Boswell was under oath, and prodded to actually draw the wound, on a medical school type skull (which Doug Horne purchased, and brought to the deposition) it became plainly evident that there was no comparison. It was a jaw dropping experience for both Gunn and Doug Horne. At that point, Doug realized for certain that we were dealing with alteration of the body, and not just "the photographs."

It really gets a bit tiresome to listen to Jim DiEugenio propounding a thesis that ignores the most important data of all--the Parkland observations regarding an egg-sized wound, through which the cerebellum "protruded", and hole that was so large at Bethesda, that it was measured (with a ruler) at "10 x 17", or 170 sq. cm.

You're a teacher, Jim. That's supposed to carry some elementary obligation about passing on accurate information.

Do the math, Jim, before prattling on and on about what Gary Aguilar has "proved", or what his acolyte Cranor, who supposedly knows "more about the medical evidence than anyone else in the world," supposedly also believes.

(Is this the same Cranor who has written there was also no difference between the tracheotomy incision which Perry made in Dallas, and which (in October, 1966) Perry told me was "2-3cm" (and which Carrico, within a day or so) also agreed was that same length, "2 - 3 cm" and with "smooth" edges) --and the autopsy testimony that it was "7 - 8 cm" with "widely gaping irregular edges." This is the same trach incision which was so horrendous, when observed at Bethesda, that Dr. Finck, asked if he could perceive the bullet wound, testified (in New Orleans) that he couldn't, adding: "I don't know why it is not there."

Oh pleez. . Jim. . get your facts straight, before so casually mouthing off, re matters about which you clearly know so little.

Aguilar and Cranor can massage the data all they want--the Parkland record is not going away, and the Parkland/Bethesda differences--both in the area of the head and neck-- are a fundamental fact of this case.

DSL

Los Angeles

1/20/11 7:50 PST

[David Lifton]

Quoting Pat Speer:

"UNDERSTAND that this means the occipital bone was not blown out and that the Harper fragment was NOT occipital bone. UNDERSTAND that those persisting in the myth the Harper fragment was occipital bone are the ones whose studies and "research" are at odds with the statements of the witnesses, and not me."

These are absurd and inaccurate statements.

The occipital bone being blown out is a fact of the Parkland record. Its in the testimony of one doctor after another (e.g., Carrico). Its even stated in the Parkland Hospital summary that was turned over to Dr. Burkley on 11/23/63.

When I interviewed Dr. Peters, he told me the wound was so low on the back of the head he could look inside and see the cerebellar lobes (or what was left of them) resting on the foramen magnum (the hole in the base of the skull). This is all spelled out in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence, devoted to the head wounds.

As far as the Harper fragment is concerned, its no "myth" that this is occipital bone. It was identified as occipital bone by Dr. Jack Harper, and corroborated by Dr. Noteboom. All this occured back in November, 1963, and was duly recorded in FBI interviews. See chapter 22 of Best Evidence, where it is all spelled out, with full and complete citations to the FBI interviews.

Why are you making statements like this, so at odds with the existing record?

Do you think your theories and hypotheses are superior, in validity, to the perceptions and observations of qualified observers who were actually there?

DSL

1/20/11

Los Angeles, CA

8:15 PM PST

[Jack White]

Quoting Pat Speer:

"UNDERSTAND that this means the occipital bone was not blown out and that the Harper fragment was NOT occipital bone. UNDERSTAND that those persisting in the myth the Harper fragment was occipital bone are the ones whose studies and "research" are at odds with the statements of the witnesses, and not me."

These are absurd and inaccurate statements.

The occipital bone being blown out is a fact of the Parkland record. Its in the testimony of one doctor after another (e.g., Carrico). Its even stated in the Parkland Hospital summary that was turned over to Dr. Burkley on 11/23/63.

When I interviewed Dr. Peters, he told me the wound was so low on the back of the head he could look inside and see the cerebellar lobes (or what was left of them) resting on the foramen magnum (the hole in the base of the skull). This is all spelled out in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence, devoted to the head wounds.

As far as the Harper fragment is concerned, its no "myth" that this is occipital bone. It was identified as occipital bone by Dr. Jack Harper, and corroborated by Dr. Noteboom. All this occured back in November, 1963, and was duly recorded in FBI interviews. See chapter 22 of Best Evidence, where it is all spelled out, with full and complete citations to the FBI interviews.

Why are you making statements like this, so at odds with the existing record?

Do you think your theories and hypotheses are superior, in validity, to the perceptions and observations of qualified observers who were actually there?

DSL

1/20/11

Los Angeles, CA

8:15 PM PST

I have always believed the Harper fragment came from the area of the cerebellum for several reasons.

One reason is that the bone is not uniform in thickness, and is broken along suture lines. The top of

the skull is uniform in thickness, but the edge is not. It is an edge bone from near the EOP.

Jack

[David Lifton]

In your compilation of Hill quotes, I note this one:

QUOTE: I saw President Kennedy grab at his throat and lurch forward. UNQUOTE

A question: How can Clint Hill, located behind JFK on the left running board of the follow-up car, see Kennedy "grab at his throat," much less "lurch forward"?

Am I misreading something? Or is there some supposed explanation which explains how Hill, located behind JFK, is able to observe something which one would normally associate with an observer located forward of the President?

DSL

1/20/10

Los Angeles,

10:15 PM PST

[Pat Speer]

Quote DiEugenio:

"Like Gary [Aguilar], who I have had many discussions on the subject with, I believe this gaping, avulsive exit hole in the back of the skull existed. It was seen at both Parkland and Bethesda, as Gary has proven."

FYI: Gary Aguilar has "proven" no such thing.

There is a huge difference between the hole in the head seen at Parkland and the huge hole reported at Bethesda--by about 400%. This is all discussed at length in BEST EVIDENCE, Chapter 13, devoted to the head wounding. Aguilar tries to lump them together, blurring the difference.

Why, I don't know--but its a massacre of the data, as it really is.

When Boswell was under oath, and prodded to actually draw the wound, on a medical school type skull (which Doug Horne purchased, and brought to the deposition) it became plainly evident that there was no comparison. It was a jaw dropping experience for both Gunn and Doug Horne. At that point, Doug realized for certain that we were dealing with alteration of the body, and not just "the photographs."

It really gets a bit tiresome to listen to Jim DiEugenio propounding a thesis that ignores the most important data of all--the Parkland observations regarding an egg-sized wound, through which the cerebellum "protruded", and hole that was so large at Bethesda, that it was measured (with a ruler) at "10 x 17", or 170 sq. cm.

You're a teacher, Jim. That's supposed to carry some elementary obligation about passing on accurate information.

Do the math, Jim, before prattling on and on about what Gary Aguilar has "proved", or what his acolyte Cranor, who supposedly knows "more about the medical evidence than anyone else in the world," supposedly also believes.

(Is this the same Cranor who has written there was also no difference between the tracheotomy incision which Perry made in Dallas, and which (in October, 1966) Perry told me was "2-3cm" (and which Carrico, within a day or so) also agreed was that same length, "2 - 3 cm" and with "smooth" edges) --and the autopsy testimony that it was "7 - 8 cm" with "widely gaping irregular edges." This is the same trach incision which was so horrendous, when observed at Bethesda, that Dr. Finck, asked if he could perceive the bullet wound, testified (in New Orleans) that he couldn't, adding: "I don't know why it is not there."

Oh pleez. . Jim. . get your facts straight, before so casually mouthing off, re matters about which you clearly know so little.

Aguilar and Cranor can massage the data all they want--the Parkland record is not going away, and the Parkland/Bethesda differences--both in the area of the head and neck-- are a fundamental fact of this case.

DSL

Los Angeles

1/20/11 7:50 PST

Thank you, David. We agree on this point. The wound described by the Bethesda witnesses was a massive wound from front to back, and does not resemble the wound described by the Parkland witnesses. It is, I suspect, the wound as seen AFTER the scalp was reflected and skull fell to the table.

[Pat Speer]

Quoting Pat Speer:

"UNDERSTAND that this means the occipital bone was not blown out and that the Harper fragment was NOT occipital bone. UNDERSTAND that those persisting in the myth the Harper fragment was occipital bone are the ones whose studies and "research" are at odds with the statements of the witnesses, and not me."

These are absurd and inaccurate statements.

The occipital bone being blown out is a fact of the Parkland record. Its in the testimony of one doctor after another (e.g., Carrico). Its even stated in the Parkland Hospital summary that was turned over to Dr. Burkley on 11/23/63.

When I interviewed Dr. Peters, he told me the wound was so low on the back of the head he could look inside and see the cerebellar lobes (or what was left of them) resting on the foramen magnum (the hole in the base of the skull). This is all spelled out in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence, devoted to the head wounds.

As far as the Harper fragment is concerned, its no "myth" that this is occipital bone. It was identified as occipital bone by Dr. Jack Harper, and corroborated by Dr. Noteboom. All this occured back in November, 1963, and was duly recorded in FBI interviews. See chapter 22 of Best Evidence, where it is all spelled out, with full and complete citations to the FBI interviews.

Why are you making statements like this, so at odds with the existing record?

Do you think your theories and hypotheses are superior, in validity, to the perceptions and observations of qualified observers who were actually there?

DSL

1/20/11

Los Angeles, CA

8:15 PM PST

David, I must disagree. The statements of the Parkland witnesses do not support that there was a massive blow-out low on the skull in the occipital region, and that the Harper fragment was occipital bone.

From chapter 18c:

The Parkland Doctors' First Statements

As one reads the following statements, one should keep in mind the manner in which these statements have been presented by conspiracy theorists of all stripe and color. In his 2006 book The JFK Assassination Debates, historian Michael Kurtz relates that "Every physician and nurse at Parkland Hospital who examined the President's head wounds described a large wound in the right rear of the head. In other words, they described a bullet wound of exit in the back of the head, which meant that the bullet came from in front of Kennedy because he faced forward. In their original descriptions of the wound in Kennedy's head, Dr.s Malcolm Perry, James Carrico, Robert McClelland, Paul Peters, Ronald Jones, and others clearly described a large wound of exit in the occipital region. In addition, they observed both cerebral and cerebellar tissue coming from the wound."

This passage, then, implies that all the doctors and nurses saw the same thing: an exit wound in the occipital region oozing cerebellar tissue. Let us see, then, how many doctors, on the day of the assassination, actually claimed 1) the wound was in the occipital region, 2) this wound was an exit wound, and 3) they saw cerebellar tissue coming from this wound.

Appendix VIII - Medical Reports from Doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Texas

Commission Exhibit No. 392

The President arrived in the Emergency Room at exactly 12:43 p. m. in his limousine. He was in the back seat, Gov. Connally was in the front seat of the same car, Gov. Connally was brought out first and was put in room two. The President was brought out next and put in room one. Dr. Clark pronounced the President dead at 1 p. m. exactly. All of the President's belongings except his watch were given to the Secret Service. His watch was given to Mr. O. P. Wright. He left the Emergency Room, the President, at about 2 p.m. in an O'Neal ambulance. He was put in a bronze colored plastic casket after being wrapped in a blanket and was taken out of the hospital. He was removed from the hospital. The Gov. was taken from the Emergency Room to the Operating Room.

The President's wife refused to take off her bloody gloves, clothes. She did take a towel and wipe her face. She took her wedding ring off and placed it on one of the President's fingers.

Summary

The President arrived at the Emergency Room at 12:43 P. M., the 22nd of November, 1963. He was in the back seat of his limousine. Governor Connally of Texas was also in this car. The first physician to see the President was Dr. James Carrico, a Resident in General Surgery.

Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow, agonal respiratory efforts. He could hear a heartbeat but found no pulse or blood pressure to be present. Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding. Dr. Carrico inserted a cuffed endotracheal tube. While doing so, he noted a ragged wound of the trachea immediately below the larynx.

At this time, Dr. Malcolm Perry, Attending Surgeon, Dr. Charles Baxter, Attending Surgeon, and Dr. Ronald Jones, another Resident in General Surgery, arrived. Immediately thereafter, Dr. M. T. Jenkins, Director of the Department of Anesthesia, and Doctors Giesecke and Hunt, two other Staff Anesthesiologists, arrived. The endotracheal tube had been connected to a Bennett respirator to assist the President's breathing. An Anesthesia machine was substituted for this by Dr. Jenkins. Only 100% oxygen was administered.

A cutdown was performed in the right ankle, and a polyethylene catheter inserted in the vein. An infusion of lactated Ringer's solution was begun. Blood was drawn for type and crossmatch, but unmatched type "O" RH negative blood was immediately obtained and begun. Hydrocortisone 300 mgms was added to the intravenous fluids.

Dr. Robert McClelland, Attending Surgeon, arrived to help in the President's care. Doctors Perry, Baxter, and McClelland began a tracheostomy, as considerable quantities of blood were present from the President's oral pharynx. At this time, Dr. Paul Peters, Attending Urological Surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark, Director of Neurological Surgery arrived. Because of the lacerated trachea, anterior chest tubes were placed in both pleural spaces. These were connected to sealed underwater drainage.

Neurological examination revealed the President's pupils to be widely dilated and fixed to light. His eyes were divergent, being deviated outward; a skew deviation from the horizontal was present. Not deep tendon reflexes or spontaneous movements were found.

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.

Further examination was not possible as cardiac arrest occurred at this point. Closed chest cardiac massage was begun by Dr. Clark. A pulse palpable in both the carotid and femoral arteries was obtained. Dr. Perry relieved on the cardiac massage while a cardiotachioscope was connected. Dr. Fouad Bashour, Attending Physician, arrived as this was being connected. There was electrical silence of the President's heart.

President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300 hours by Dr. Clark.

Kemp Clark, M. D.

Director

Service of Neurological Surgery

KC:aa

cc to Dean's Office, Southwestern Medical School

cc to Medical Records, Parkland Memorial Hospital

(Note: this summary was written by Dr. Clark. Here he describes the head wound as right occipito-parietal, which would place above and behind the right ear. As no notes were taken in the ER, however, it seems clear Dr. Clark was relying solely on his memory of a wound seen hours before. As a result, it is not unreasonable to suspect he made a rotation error.)

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

J. F. KENNEDY

DATE AND HOUR 11/22/63 1620

DOCTOR: Carrico

When patient entered Emergency room on ambulance carriage had slow agonal respiratory efforts and scant cardiac beats by auscultation. Two external wounds were noted. One small penetrating wound of ant. neck in lower 1/3. The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing. No pulse or blood pressure were present. Pupils were dilated and fixed. A cuffed endotracheal tube was inserted and through the laryngoscope a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx. The tube was passed past the laceration and the cuff inflated. Respiration using the resp assistor on auto-matic were instituted. Concurrently an IV infusion of lactated Ringer solution was begun via catheter placed in right leg and blood was drawn for type and crossmatch. Type O Rh negative blood was obtained as well as hydrocortisone.

In view of tracheal injury and decreased BS a tracheostomy was performed by Dr. Perry and Bilat. chest tubes inserted. A 2nd bld infusion was begun in left arm. In addition Dr. Jenkins began resp with anethesia machine, cardiac monitor, and stimulator attached. Solu cortef IV given (300mg), attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted. Despite these measures as well as external cardiac massage, BP never returned and EKG evidence of cardiac activity was never obtained.

Charles J. Carrico M.D

(Note: Dr. Carrico was the first doctor on the scene. Here he fails to specify the exact location of the head wound. Perhaps he, in fact, had no clear recollection of its location. In any event, he would later make statements suggesting that the wound was in the occipital bone, and then still later that it was chiefly a parietal wound, above the ear. After viewing the autopsy photos in the Archives, moreover, he would disavow his earlier references to occipital and cerebellar damage, and insist instead that he'd been mitsaken and that Kennedy’s wounds were as shown in the photos.

Kurtz score: Carrico does not describe the location of the wound, although its location can be inferred from his reference to cerebellum. He does not, however, describe this wound as a wound of exit. Kurtz's summary of Carrico's statement is therefore accurate on 2 of 3 points. Somewhat misleading.)

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

J. F. KENNEDY

DATE AND HOUR 22 Nov 1963 DOCTOR: PERRY

Staff Note

At the time of initial examination, the pt. was noted as non-responsive. The eyes were deviated and the pupils were dilated. A considerable quantity of blood was noted on the patient, the carriage and the floor. A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck, in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted, exposing severely lacerated brain. Brain tissue was noted in the blood at the head of the carriage.

Pulse or heartbeat were not detectable but slow spasmodic respiration was noted. An endotracheal tube was in place and respiration was being assisted. An intravenous infusion was being placed in the leg.

At this point I noted that respiration was ineffective and while additional venisections were done to administer fluids and blood, a tracheostomy was effected. A right lateral injury to the trachea was noted. The tracheostomy tube was put in place and the cuff inflated and respiration assisted. Closed chest cardiac massage was instituted after placement of sealed drainage chest tubes, but without benefit. Electrocardiographic evaluation revealed that no detectable electrical activity existed in the heart. Resuscitation attempts were abandoned after the team of physicians determined that the patient had expired.

Malcolm O. Perry, M.D.

1630 hr 22 Nov 1963

(Note: Perry simply describes the large head wound as posterior. When Kennedy was lying flat on his back, of course, the wound on the top of his head was ...posterior. Perry has since stated that the autopsy photos accurately depict the wounds.

Kurtz score: Perry does not mention the occipital bone, nor cerebellum. Nor does he describe the wound as a wound of exit. In fact, in the initial press conference in which Kennedy's wounds were discussed, Perry said "The nature of the wound defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side." Kurtz's summary therefore is inaccurate on all 3 points. Misleading.)

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR NOV 22, 1963 DOCTOR: BAXTER

Note of Attendance to President Kennedy

I was contacted at approx 12:40 that the President was on the way to the emergency room having been shot. On arrival there, I found an endotracheal tube in place with assisted respirations, a left chest tube being inserted and cut downs going in one leg and in the left arm. The President had a wound in the mid-line of the neck. On first observation of the remaining wounds the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table, with extensive lacerations and contusions. The pupils were fixed and deviated lateral and dilated. No pulse was detectable and respirations were (as noted) being supplied. A tracheotomy was performed by Dr. Perry and I and a chest tube inserted into the right chest (2nd intercostal space anteriorally). Meanwhile, 2 pts of O neg blood were administered by pump without response. When all of these measures were complete, no heart beat could be detected. Closed chest massage was performed until a cardioscope could be attached which revealed no cardiac activity was obtained. Due to the excessive and irreparable brain damage which was lethal, no further attempt to resuscitate the heart was made.

Charles R. Baxter M.D.

Associate Prof of Surgery

Southwestern Medical School

(Note: Baxter’s statement is a bit strange. If “the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing”, as Baxter claimed, there would be a huge hole on the side and back of Kennedy’s head. Perhaps then, he meant only that parts of the temporal and occipital bones were missing. Baxter would eventually try to clear this up. When he testified before the Warren Commission, at a time long before anyone was talking about the difference in wound descriptions of those viewing Kennedy in Parkland and Bethesda, he testified that "the temporal and parietal bones were missing". This, in effect, moved the wound from the side and back of the skull, to the side and top of the skull. Baxter also later told the ARRB "None of us at that time, I don't think, were in any position to view the head injury. And, in fact, I never saw anything above the scalpline, forehead line, that I could comment on.”

Kurtz score: by his inclusion of the temporal bone, it is clear Baxter was describing a wound on the side of the head, not the rear of the head. He also made no mention of cerebellum oozing from the wound, nor that this wound was an exit wound. Kurtz's summary of Baxter's statements therefore is inaccurate on all 3 points. Misleading.)

DATE AND HOUR 22 Nov 1963

12:20pm to 13:00 hrs

Called by EOR while standing in (illegible) Laboratory at SWMS. Told that the President had been shot. I arrived at the EOR at 1220 - 1225 and .The President was bleeding profusely from the back of the head. There was a large (3 x 3cm) amount of cerebral tissue present on the cart. There was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also.

A tracheostomy was being performed by Drs. Perry, Baxter and McClelland. Exam of the President showed that an endotracheal tube was in place and respiratory assistance was being given by Dr. Akins and Jenkins. The pupils were dilated, fixed to light and his eyes were deviated outward and the right one downward as as well .

The trach was completed and I adjusted the endotracheal tube a little bit. Blood was present in the oral pharynx. Suction was used to remove this. Levine Catheter was passed into the stomach at this time.

He was (illegible) that I (illegible) no carotid pulse. I immediately began closed chest massage. A pulse was obtained at the carotid and femoral pulse levels.

Dr. Perry then took over the cardiac massage so I could evaluate the head wound.

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.

By this time an EKG was hooked up. There was no electrical activity of the heart and no respiratory effort - He was pronounced dead at 1300 hrs by me.

W. Kemp Clark

22 Nov 1963 1615 hrs -

(Note: although Clark describes cerebral and cerebellar tissue on the cart, his colleagues have noted that macerated brain tissue is difficult to distinguish from cerebellar tissue, and that he, as they, could have been mistaken. His statement that “much of the skull appeared gone” is problematic for those who try to make the Dallas doctors' descriptions of a wound on the back of the head jive with the Zapruder film and autopsy photos' depiction of a wound on top of the head by speculating that the Dallas doctors did not see the large head wound on top of the head because Mrs. Kennedy had put the bones back in place, and that they instead saw the posterior aspect of this wound behind the ear, which was not recorded in the autopsy photos due to the autopsists' closing of the bone flaps on back of the head. Clark claimed to see a large hole in the skull, and not a hole beneath some bone flaps. This means that either the large head wound was on the top of the head and Clark was mistaken as to its exact location, or it was on the back of the head as described by Clark and the Zapruder film and autopsy photos have been faked. I choose the first alternative.

Kurtz score: by mentioning the parietal bone, Clark was describing a wound higher on the skull than the one implied by Kurtz. Even so, Clark does mention the occipital bone, and the oozing of cerebellar tissue from the wound. He does not, however, describe the wound as a wound of exit. In fact, Clark, a man from whom all the other doctors would take their cue, made clear in the initial press conference that the wound could be either an exit for a shot fired from the front OR a wound of both entrance and exit for a shot fired from the rear. Kurtz's summary of Clark's statement, then, is accurate on 2 of 3 points. Somewhat misleading.)

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland

Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy

At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. 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.

Robert N. McClelland M.D.

Asst. Prof. of Surgery

Southwestern Med.

School of Univ of Tex.

Dallas, Texas

(Note: in this, his earliest statement on the assassination, Dr. McClelland reveals that he was easily confused and prone to speculation. First of all, he gets himself all turned around and mistakenly says there was a wound in the left temple. He says nothing of a wound on the back of the head or behind the ear. Second of all, he states, without offering any supporting evidence, that the throat wound was a fragment wound.

On March 21, 1964, Dr. McClelland testified before the Warren Commission. He said: “As I took the position at the head of the table that l 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 ... 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.”

Since Kennedy was by all reports lying on his back, it is impossible to understand how McClelland could look down into a wound on the back of Kennedy’s head. It seems likely then that McClelland, as Clark, was confused by the rotation of Kennedy’s skull. Incidentally, McClelland, while insisting that the wound he saw was posterior, nevertheless defends the legitimacy of the autopsy photos. He explains that the back of the head photo depicts sagging scalp pulled over a large occipito-parietal wound. This assertion is utterly fantastic and is unsupported by every book on wound ballistics ever written. Scalp overlying explosive wounds does not sag, it tears. No such tears were noted on the back of Kennedy's head at autopsy.

Kurtz score: McClelland's original statement said none of the things Kurtz claims it did. Kurtz's summary of McClelland's statement is therefore inaccurate on all 3 points. Misleading.)

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: BASHOUR

Statement Regarding Assassination of the President of the U.S.A., President Kennedy At 12:50 PM, we were called from the 1st floor of Parkland Hospital and told that President Kennedy was shot. Dr. D ?? and myself went to the emergency room of Parkland. Upon examination, the President had no pulsation, no heartbeat, no blood pressure. The oscilloscope showed a complete standstill. The president was declared dead at 12:55 P.M.

F. Bashour M.D.

Associate Professor of Cardiology

Southwestern Medical School Dallas, Texas.

(Note: there is not much to say about Dr. Bashour’s statement, but the next statement, holds the key.)

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL SCHOOL, DALLAS

November 22, 1963 1630

To: Mr. C. J. Price, Administrator Parkland Memorial Hospital

From: M. T. Jenkins, M.D., Professor and Chairman Department of Anesthesiology

Subject: Statement concerning resuscitative efforts for President John F. Kennedy

Upon receiving a stat alarm that this distinguished patient was being brought to the emergency room at Parkland Memorial Hospital, I dispatched Doctors A. H. Giesecke and Jackie H. Hunt with an anesthesia machine and resuscitative equipment to the major surgical emergency room area, and I ran down the stairs. On my arrival in the emergency operating room at approximately 1230 I found that Doctors Carrico and/or Delaney had begun resuscitative efforts by introducing an orotracheal tube, connecting it for controlled ventilation to a Bennett intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus. Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage. Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation.

For better control of artificial ventilation, I exchanged the intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus for an anesthesia machine and continued artificial ventilation. Doctors Gene Akin and A. H. Giesecke assisted with the respiratory problems incident to changing from the orotracheal tube to a tracheostomy tube and Doctors Hunt and Giesecke connected a cardioscope to determine cardiac activity.

During the progress of these activities, the emergency room cart was elevated at the feet in order to provide a Trendelenburg position, a venous cutdown was performed on the right saphenous vein, and additional fluids were begun in a vein in the left forearm while blood was ordered from the blood bank. All of these activities were completed by approximately 1245, at which time external cardiac massage was still being carried out effectively by Doctor Clark as judged by a palpable peripheral pulse. Despite these measures there was no electrocardiographic evidence of cardiac activity.

These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out attention was turned to all other evidences of injury. 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. There were also fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart . With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage .

It is my personal feeling that all methods of resuscitation were instituted expeditiously and efficiently. However, this cranial and intracranial damage was of such magnitude as to cause the irreversible damage. President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300.

Sincerely, M. T. Jenkins, M.D .

Kurtz score on Jenkins: The wound described by Jenkins was along the right side of the head, not back of the head. While Jenkins mentioned cerebellum, he did not describe the wound as a wound of exit. Kurtz's summary of Jenkins' statements is therefore inaccurate on 2 of 3 points. Misleading.

Final Kurtz score: Kurtz has misrepresented every initial statement to some degree. Four of the six doctors to comment on the head wound on 11/22/63 mentioned locations more to the side of the head and/or top of the head than the wound described by Kurtz. Others made no mention whatsoever of the occipital bone or the cerebellum. None described the wound as an exit. Even worse, Kurtz has deliberately ignored Clark's and Perry's statements suggesting the wound could be a wound of both entrance and exit, and the likelihood that ALL the other doctors would defer to this analysis. By including Paul Peters and Ronald Jones in his list of doctors making these statements, moreover, Kurtz implied they'd made statements in the days after the assassination that could be considered "fresh," when, in fact, the earliest statements one can attribute to them were made several months later, after no doubt dozens of discussions on the assassination with their fellow Parkland physicians and nurses. Kurtz's summary, then, which was accurate on only 6 of 18 points in the initial statements of the Parkland doctors, can only be considered misleading.

[David Lifton]

Quoting Di Eugenio:

"As I noted in my review, Boswell's testimony on this point is an outlier. And I find it hard to believe that you do not understand that."

Jim: I have news for you. Boswell was there--up close and personal. You were not--nor was Aguilar.

Furthermore, Boswell wrote down the measurements he made, right there at the autopsy table, with a ruler. And he wrote them on paper that has Kennedy's blood stains on it.

That's what qualifies Boswell's testimony and observations of the highest importance--as what in the law would easily be called the "best evidence."

As a history teacher, you ought to know that.

Boswell wasn't taking a "vote" --among all the witnesses who may (or may not) have seen the wounds. He was right there, and measured it. I spoke with him about this, in 1979. He put a ruler right up against Kennedy's exposed skull.

Calling Boswell "an outlier" gives away your mindset--as if this is a matter of "voting" on the wounds. Calling Boswell "an outlier" is like calling Galileo an "outlier," when he wrote "Starry Messenger," because he could observe the reality of the evidence, rather than go with the teachings of the church.

Galileo had a telescope. He observed and reported the reality. Boswell was right there, hands on, measuring the enormous hole in the top of Kennedy's head, with a ruler. And then writing down what he saw: "10 x 17" cm--140 sq cm. About eight inches across.

Nothing of the sort was seen in Dallas.

Please don't insult our intelligence by calling Boswell "an outlier."

DSL

Los Angeles, CA

1/20/10; 10:30 PM

[David Lifton]

Quoting Cliff Varnell:

QUOTE:

"I never claimed they used the phrase "blood soluble," but that is clearly what they were driving at. They had entrance wounds with no corresponding exits, no bullets, and they clearly posed the possibility JFK was hit with an exotic round that "dissolves after contact."

Further, one of the FBI guys followed through and began to investigate whether such exotic weaponry existed. SA Sibert called the FBI Lab for that expressed purpose, but the inquiry was diverted by the news of the Magic Bullet.

UNQUOTE

This is incorrect--not just incorrect, but just plain ridiculous. There is no evidence to support the thesis that Sibert/O'Neill (as straight as straight-arrows can be) called the FBI Lab in pursuit of such a hypothesis--in your words, "to investigate whether such exotic weaponry existed." And: "SA Sibert called the FBI Lab for that expressed purpose."

There is no FBI record or memorandum to that effect; further, I spoke with Sibert personally, and at length, circa 1991, and he never said any such thing. The same is true of an associate of mine (Sean Fetter). How you divine such a purpose is beyond me.

The Sibert/O'Neill phone call to the FBI Lab occurred as a direct result of SS Agent Kellerman (who apparently knew of the delivery of the stretcher bullet to the FBI Lab) to call the Bureau.

In other words, Humes had a wound without a bullet; Kellerman then played the "missing card" (a bullet without a wound) and Humes then made the call.

Suddenly: Humes had a bullet for the puzzle of the "wound without a bullet."

No exotic weaponry--but plenty of grounds for suspecting contrivance, and theatrics, on the part of Kellerman, and perhaps Humes, too.

In courses on screenplay writing, its called a "Hollywood moment," when the phone suddenly rings. Here, we have a variation of that same idea: a "Hollwyood moment" when a key Secret Service agent suggests that a rather important phone call be made.

What I've just described is right there, in the record: but, if you have evidence of Sibert and O'Neill pursuing the "exotic weaponry" hypothesis, I'd sure like to know what that is.

DSL

1/20/11

10:45 PM, PST

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

I thought I had put this question to rest long ago. Did you somehow miss my article,

"Reasoning about Assassinations", which I presented at Cambridge and published

in an international, peer-reviewed journal? It can be downloaded here by using this link

http://assassinationscience.com/ReasoningAboutAssassinations.pdf and is also at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/reasoning-about-assassinations.html

So why don't you go through my argument, step by step, and explain exactly what you

think I have wrong. Unless I have made a mistake, there is no support for your position.

Jim

I looked over your article. I agree that the back wound location pretty much destroys the single-bullet theory. I have argued as much with McAdams for years and have forced him into a very uncomfortable corner, whereby he is the one now taking the traditional CT stance that it's okay to second-guess the pathology panel when convenient.

http://www.patspeer.com/thenutterprof2.jpg

[David Lifton]

QUOTING CLIFF VARNELL:

Near as I can figure it out, that leaves two possibilities: either JFK was hit with blood soluble rounds in the back and throat, or there was pre-autopsy surgery on the throat and back in order to remove those rounds.

The latter scenario has many more problems than the former, imo. While body alteration per se is not a "theory" -- it's mentioned in the FBI autopsy report, after all -- the kind of extensive alteration required to remove bullets from the back and neck strikes me as much more "far-fetched" than the autopsists theory of blood soluble rounds.

Another problem with the body alteration theory is that both the back and throat shots had to have missed their target -- JFK's head -- and both must have been defective "short-shots."

If there are other possibilities to explain how JFK had two entrance wounds with no exits and no bullets recovered, I'm all ears. UNQUOTE

Some commends:

(1) Re: "While body alteration per se is not a "theory" -- it's mentioned in the FBI autopsy report,"

(a) There is no such thing as an "FBI autopsy report". Sibert and O'Neill simply wrote a report of their observations of what the doctors were doing (and saying). That does not constitute an "FBI autopsy report" --any more than if Joe Smith made a steno record of the autopsy proceeding, we would call it the "Joe Smith autopsy report." For the most part, the Sibert and O'Neill report is a record of oral utterances, of the autopsy surgeons--and that is one of its chief values.

(b ) The fact that something is mentioned in an FBI 302 report does not make it an uncontrovertible fact. That's why the years of work I did and the publication of my book in January 1981 is properly described as "history" or "investigative reporting" etc.--but the mere mention of something in an FBI report does not mean--ipso facto--that its "a fact."

(c ) You are correct that the throat shot did indeed "miss the target." And I have some new information on that score which should prove most interesting. As for the back wound, that was not reported by anyone in Dallas--and I'm referring here to the 1963/64 Dallas medical record (and not some hoked up Q and A by Harrison Livingstone decades later). In my opinion, it was not reported because it was not there. Furthermore, as I noted in Best Evidence (Chapter 11), Humes called Perry the next morning and--according to Perry--asked him if "we had made any wounds in the back." (And, of course, this wound offers a perfect "match" for the stretcher bullet found in Dallas).

(d) As for the bullet which struck the throat from the front: Inasmuch as we have a "receipt for a misle"--which imho, has never been adequately explained, plus the plethora of evidence of pre-autopsy alteration, I would say that the only logical explanation for the state of Kennedy's body at the time of autopsy is that there were in fact a number of acts that can properly be described as pre-autopsy "surgery".

(e) I also cannot resist calling attention to what Sibert/O'Neill reported that Kellerman told them in the morgue that night: that Kennedy not only cried out "I'm hit" and "Get me to a hospital" (or some such nonsense) but that, ever more bizarre, Kellerman told the FBI Agents that he witnessed Kennedy reaching with his right hand over his shoulder to a spot on his back (or shoulder), thus attempting to legitimize this entry wound which was not seen by anyone in Dallas, and constituting motions not seen on the Zapruder film.

I don't think one must be Hercule Poirot to focus one's attention on Secret Service agent Kellerman.

DSL

1/20/11

Los Angeles, CA

11:10 PM PST

Edited January 21, 2011 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

QUOTING CLIFF VARNELL:

I disagree with Pat on several fronts but I have confidence in his temperament as a moderator.

I don't agree with David Lifton's body alteration theories.

But since surgery to the head is listed in the FBI autopsy report, how can anyone categorically dismiss the possibility, if not probability, of pre-autopsy surgery to the head?

It's not a theory and it doesn't belong to David Lifton.

UNQUOTE

When BEST EVIDENCE was published in January, 1981, my publisher took out a two-page ad in Publisher's Weekly--the cover plus the next inside page--that said something like this:"The only book on the JFK assassination published in this century, that will still be important in the next century."

And guess what, it is.

No, I don't "own" the theory, but I did the work, connected the dots, got it published--and it happens to explain some of the most critical data in this case. To those who are new to this case, I sometimes feel like saying, "Yes, Virginia, there WAS pre-autopsy surgery. . And if you want to understand what really happened to President Kennedy, you must view the data through that lens.'

That was true when I wrote Best Evidence, and its still true today.

The fundamental fact of this case is that there is a profound bifurcation in the Dallas/Bethesda records of the wounds on President Kennedy's body--it is a classical "before and after" situation similar to many which come from the field of physics or chemistry. Further, my body alteration theory --which includes all the data on the interception of the body, as well as its alteration (btw) --provides the most logical and sensible way of viewing, and understanding, this bifurcated record.

DSL

Los Angeles, Ca.

1/20/11; 11:30 PM

[Cliff Varnell]

QUOTING CLIFF VARNELL:

I disagree with Pat on several fronts but I have confidence in his temperament as a moderator.

I don't agree with David Lifton's body alteration theories.

But since surgery to the head is listed in the FBI autopsy report, how can anyone categorically dismiss the possibility, if not probability, of pre-autopsy surgery to the head?

It's not a theory and it doesn't belong to David Lifton.

UNQUOTE

When BEST EVIDENCE was published in January, 1981, my publisher took out a two-page ad in Publisher's Weekly--the cover plus the next inside page--that said something like this:"The only book on the JFK assassination published in this century, that will still be important in the next century."

And guess what, it is.

No, I don't "own" the theory, but I did the work, connected the dots, got it published--and it happens to explain some of the most critical data in this case. To those who are new to this case, I sometimes feel like saying, "Yes, Virginia, there WAS pre-autopsy surgery. . And if you want to understand what really happened to President Kennedy, you must view the data through that lens.'

That was true when I wrote Best Evidence, and its still true today.

The fundamental fact of this case is that there is a profound bifurcation in the Dallas/Bethesda records of the wounds on President Kennedy's body--it is a classical "before and after" situation similar to many which come from the field of physics or chemistry. Further, my body alteration theory --which includes all the data on the interception of the body, as well as its alteration (btw) --provides the most logical and sensible way of viewing, and understanding, this bifurcated record.

DSL

Los Angeles, Ca.

1/20/11; 11:30 PM

Thank you for all your fine work in this area, David. As to the head wounds, I couldn't agree more.