Lifton and Morningstar, nice but no cigar.

[Daniel Gallup]

Are you saying that what we see in Zapruder frame 313 is fake?

Once one allows themselves to believe that the data is fake they enter a realm where they can prove just about anything they want to prove. I cannot go there.

Yes I am saying emphatically that it is fake. As phony as CE 399 piercing two men, and in particular a bone-crunching tour through Connally's chest and wrist.. As phony as the reported photograph of Kennedy's brain, showing the cerebellum intact. The conflicts between the film and the evidence of wounding as seen in Parkland are a permanent part of the record. The conflicts between the film and what those who were at the limo at the time of the headshot saw is part of the record, thank to researches who interviewed these people before they knew that what they saw contradicted the film. Kudos to Debra Conway for her groundbreaking interview of Toni Foster in the summer 2000 Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, David Lifton for his 1971 interviews of the Newmans, Franzens, and Mary Moorman, and kudos to the many others who recorded testimony of the limo stopping after the headshot.

And Mike, you are dead wrong that in questioning the validity of the evidence you can prove anything you want to prove. Has proving CE 399 did not do what the WC said it did led to the truth in the assassination? No, it has created more mystery. Does taking the limo stop witnesses seriously solve the crime? No, it creates more mystery. These things show we don't know as much about what happened in Dealey Plaza as we thought we did. Conflicts in the record have to be explained and not swept under the rug. It is the enormity of these conflicts that led me to the conclusion that the extant Z-film is a CIA dog and pony show, among other things. I cannot recommend enough reading Best Evidence and then Doug Horne's 5 volumes, both of which highlight the conflicts in the record, and their attempts to reconclie them. I think Lifton's basic thesis has withstood the test of time.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Daniel Gallup

[Daniel Gallup]

Arguing from a faked film is to me no evidence at all. No one at Parkland reported such a wound. Recall, if you will, Audrey Bell asking Perry where the wound was, because the face was clear, as well as the top of the skull. Perry turned Kennedy's head to the left and pointed to the right rear. Nurse Bowron reported only one large wound in the rear of the skull. See also McClelland's drawing for Thompson, and the FBI report of surgery, first unearthed by Lifton and published in Best Evidence. The FBI were recording words of Humes that night, and Humes said there was surgery to the top of the skull. The photo above shows the top of Kennedy's head looking like scrambled eggs and hair. Funny no one saw any of this at Parkland. Costella's list of mistakes in the extant film speak to 313 and would be good reading. The government has us fooled, and we have fallen for this fraud hook, line and sinker.

Daniel,

Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was.

Although Diana Bowron testified to the Commission that she only saw only the neck wound she also saw the back wound. In "Killing the Truth" P. 189 she informed Harrison Livingston that she also saw the back wound. That makes sense, because I believe she assisted in the preparation of the body for return to Washington.

I believe you will find that Dr. McClelland has commented on what he considered this drawing meant. I understand his view is that it did not reflect a wound as you have described. I cannot remember exactly what he said it really meant. But I am sure it is not the single exit wound that many take it to mean.

The Sibert O'Neill is still dynamite, even after all these years. True it is not clear what was meant, but somebody said it and all Sibert and O'Neill did was to record it.

I have never been persuaded by the Fetzer/Costella theory about Zapruder. The complexity of what would be required is what I find to seriously undermine the theory. And without the Zapruder film we have lost the visual evidence of the assassination.

James

This comes from her ARRB deposition. I took the information from Brad Parker's First on the Scene, published by Lancer, page 166, although the actual deposition should be read. AS for Bowron, she testified before the WC about the wound in the back of the head, She is listed as a witness to an right-rear blowout of the back of the head in the WC, Vol 6, part of CE 392, Appendix VIII , pp. 516-530. As to her comments years later to Livingston, I would like to ask her why she did not reveal this information to the WC when questioned. Before the WC, she said she met the limo and saw Kennedy "lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee. " She testified to seeing just one large hole in the back of his head, which accords with Jackie's own words which I quoted earlier. She told Livingston about seeing the throat wound, thinking it was an entrance wound (and she would be in a position to see it, being one of the first to see the president in the limo at Parkland) and the back wound. We have corroboration for the neck wound, but i would feel much better if Nurse Henchcliff also reported seeing a back wound. It is my memory that she said she saw no such thing, but I no longer remember the source and hope someone who knows more than I can nail down Henchcliff's observations. If she denied seeing a back wound, that would be strange, since she participated in washing Kennedy's body and presumbably had as good a look at the President's back as Bowron. An orderly Sanders was also present. Has he ever commented? Anyway, hope the information on Bell helps. best, daniel

s

[David Lifton]

We can see skull being ejected from the top of the presidents head in Zapruder frame 313. This is when the large hole in the top of the head was created. I am obviously not a forensic analyst, however I believe that a high speed bullet striking the skull at an oblique angle could cause the ejection of skull bone as we see in the zapruder frame.

Again, the area inside the red ellipse in the following image is obviously an exit wound. That wound was created at the same time as the skull material was ejected.

Regarding Mrs. Kennedy's statements I believe she was referring to the wound created by the second bullet.

This thread explains whay I think the shot came from the roof of a building.

http://educationforu...45

Re: "This is when the large hole in the top of the head was created."

The problem with this hypothesis is that there is no such hole according to the Parkland Hospital medical reports and testimony. And, fyi, when I interviewed Dr. Ronald Jones, on camera, he was particlarly strong, if not vociferous, on this point--and Doug Horne has noted that he was the same when interviewed by the ARRB.

The supposed "hole at the top of the head" is something definitely present at Bethesda (and particularly evident when the scalp was pulled back, at least according to Boswell) but it was certainly not present at Parkland.

DSL

7/20/12

3:30 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

[David Lifton]

Arguing from a faked film is to me no evidence at all. No one at Parkland reported such a wound. Recall, if you will, Audrey Bell asking Perry where the wound was, because the face was clear, as well as the top of the skull. Perry turned Kennedy's head to the left and pointed to the right rear. Nurse Bowron reported only one large wound in the rear of the skull. See also McClelland's drawing for Thompson, and the FBI report of surgery, first unearthed by Lifton and published in Best Evidence. The FBI were recording words of Humes that night, and Humes said there was surgery to the top of the skull. The photo above shows the top of Kennedy's head looking like scrambled eggs and hair. Funny no one saw any of this at Parkland. Costella's list of mistakes in the extant film speak to 313 and would be good reading. The government has us fooled, and we have fallen for this fraud hook, line and sinker.

Daniel,

Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was.

Although Diana Bowron testified to the Commission that she only saw only the neck wound she also saw the back wound. In "Killing the Truth" P. 189 she informed Harrison Livingston that she also saw the back wound. That makes sense, because I believe she assisted in the preparation of the body for return to Washington.

I believe you will find that Dr. McClelland has commented on what he considered this drawing meant. I understand his view is that it did not reflect a wound as you have described. I cannot remember exactly what he said it really meant. But I am sure it is not the single exit wound that many take it to mean.

The Sibert O'Neill is still dynamite, even after all these years. True it is not clear what was meant, but somebody said it and all Sibert and O'Neill did was to record it.

I have never been persuaded by the Fetzer/Costella theory about Zapruder. The complexity of what would be required is what I find to seriously undermine the theory. And without the Zapruder film we have lost the visual evidence of the assassination.

James

Some comments:

Re your question: "Daniel, Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was."

I'm pretty sure she said this in an ARRB questioning, but I can definitely tell you that she said it to me, and quite specifically, in a 1989 filmed interview. If I can get all my stuff properly transferred, and my Website completed, I'll be sure to include that excerpt. Its quite dramatic: the wound was so localized, at the back of the head, that Dr. Perry had to move the head to one side, so that she could even see it.

Re Harrison Livingston and Nurse Bowron: When Bowron testified (in her WC deposition) she said she saw just one wound (besides the throat wound)--the one at the back of the head. She was asked a second time if she saw any other wound. Her answer was "no." Exactly how Livingstone got her to answer otherwise, some decades later, I have no idea. But, in evaluating this situation, you cannot ignore the almost pathological hatred that Livingstone exhibited, towards me and my work, actually leaving death threats on my phone answering machine, writing me bizarre letters which also contained threats, and then suing me for $50 million dollars, claiming I was part of a conspiracy to murder him.

Need I say more?. . .

I don't know what Dr. McClelland said in later years, but he clearly believed, in November 1963, that a bullet exited from the wound he described at the back of the head; repeated essentially the same thing when he testified (1964); and certainly said that to me and Pat Valentino when we conducted a detailed filmed interview in 1989.

The problem with this case is that many folks said one thing in 1963/1964, and then, years later, read books or articles, formed opinions about what happened, and then those opinions affected their own recollections. Always its best to deal with the earliest recorded recollection. That's true in a simple auto accident, and its also true in the case of the Kennedy assassination.

Two other matters:

Re the Sibert-O'Neill quote about surgery: you ought to read Sibert's ARRB deposition, and the notes he himself made in connection with our telephone call in 1990 (ARRB document MD-216). Google Sibert for the ARRB deposition. There's no question as to "who said it"--it was Commander Humes, and that was specified in documents released under FOIA and sent to me back in 1978. (See Chapter 12 of Best Evidence).

Re the Zapruder film:

I personally believe the Zapruder film (and other films) were collected and altered, and the full account of when and where that was done will become public in the next few years. It was indeed complex, it involved a major effort, and some top people were involved, all believing they were involved in something that had to be done "to prevent W W III"--in other words, the usual "WW 3" cock and bull story that was utilzed by LBJ on Earl Warren, Richard Russell, and others. Re Costella: he is a fine scientist. As for Fetzer,. . the less said, the better. The man subscribes to such things as "no planes" hit the World Trade Center, that the moon landings were all faked, and associates with people who are Holocaust denialists and who believe there were swimming pools at Auschwitz. Yuk!

DSL

7/30/12; 4 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited July 30, 2012 by David Lifton

[Mike Rago]

Re: "This is when the large hole in the top of the head was created."

The problem with this hypothesis is that there is no such hole according to the Parkland Hospital medical reports and testimony. And, fyi, when I interviewed Dr. Ronald Jones, on camera, he was particlarly strong, if not vociferous, on this point--and Doug Horne has noted that he was the same when interviewed by the ARRB.

The supposed "hole at the top of the head" is something definitely present at Bethesda (and particularly evident when the scalp was pulled back, at least according to Boswell) but it was certainly not present at Parkland.

DSL

7/20/12

3:30 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

You can see the skull fragment ejected in the Zapruder film. The hole on the top of the head was created at zapruder frame 313.

When I first looked at this picture I did not see the hole in the top of the head, it all looked like hair to me.

As you have said, it is particularly evident when the scalp is pulled back. I assume if the scalp is not pulled back it is not particularly evident.

There was also a wound at the back of the head and can be seen in this zapruder frame. It is a different wound caused by a different bullet from a different direction. JFK was hit by two bullets from opposing directions nearly simultaneously.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Mike Rago

[David Andrews]

What's nagging about the temporal flap is that it's not reported by Jackie or Clint Hill or the Parkland doctors, all of whom reported a massive defect at the occipital-parietal.

Yet there that flap is, suspiciously large in Zapruder, visible in the autopsy photo with Boswell, while the back-of-head wound is not seen.

One would think that an enormous wounding beside that famous face would be remarked upon early.

Edited July 30, 2012 by David Andrews

[Mike Rago]

Are you saying that what we see in Zapruder frame 313 is fake?

Once one allows themselves to believe that the data is fake they enter a realm where they can prove just about anything they want to prove. I cannot go there.

If you cannot "go there," then you are essentially saying, in advance, that you cannot deal with the most basic and most elementary of deception mechanisms: the deliberate falsification of evidence to manufacture a false story about the murder of the President.

If you cannot "go there," then that means that you are willing to be duped by anyone who places a rifle near a window, or a bullet on a stretcher, or alters a wound on a body--or, yes, screws around with (i.e., fakes) a motion picture film.

If you can't deal with the concept of falsified evidence, and pursue data that in fact indicates such falsification, then you will never get to the bottom of the Kennedy assassination.

Unearthing the evidence that the key evidence in this case was altered does not give one a license to invent "any old 'solution' " to the Kennedy assassination, but forces one to reason carefully and to learn to distinguish between the false and the real; between fact and artifact.

If the critical evidence in this case --i.e., the autopsy--was falisified, then the notion that Lee Oswald shot the president is nothing more than a cover story manufactured in advance by plotters, promulgated by the Dallas Police Department, swallowed whole by the FBI, and then sanctified by the Warren Commission.

You say you don't want to "go there." I'd advise you to rethink that position, because, when it comes to finding the truth about what happened on November 22, 1963, that's where the true lies.

DSL

I just noticed this post.

The evidence needed to figure out this case has not been falsified. The Zapruder film is not fake.

If I were to pick a film that has been altered I would pick the Nix film.

Regarding still photos there is some hokus pokus going on. It appears to me that alteration occurs via cropping of the image.

A lot of the manipulation that I see(in WC and HSCA and some books) is by omission or by interjection. (Questions not asked, photos not analyzed or missing, changing horses in mid stream, statements attributed to witness that witness did not make)

( I am not talking about your book in the preceding statement, I am thinking of one particular book and one particular witness but a very important interjection)

To interject falsification unnecessarily clouds this already cloudy case.

You are using witness testimony backwards in my opinion. You are using witness testimony to say the recorded data is not correct whereas, you should be using the recorded data to help you better organize and interpret witness statements.

I need to state that I have not read your book. I am basing this post on statements you have made in this thread only.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Pat Speer]

I don't know what Dr. McClelland said in later years, but he clearly believed, in November 1963, that a bullet exited from the wound he described at the back of the head; repeated essentially the same thing when he testified (1964); and certainly said that to me and Pat Valentino when we conducted a detailed filmed interview in 1989.

The problem with this case is that many folks said one thing in 1963/1964, and then, years later, read books or articles, formed opinions about what happened, and then those opinions affected their own recollections. Always its best to deal with the earliest recorded recollection. That's true in a simple auto accident, and its also true in the case of the Kennedy assassination.

DSL

7/30/12; 4 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

The reasons you think we should believe McClelland saw a wound on the far back of Kennedy's head are the very reasons I don't believe he saw such a wound: his earliest statements.

"The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." Dr. McClelland's report on the death of President Kennedy, written on 11-22-63.

"I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind." Dr. Robert McClelland, as quoted by Richard Dudman in the 12-18-63 St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

If you know of any statements by McClelland made prior to his Warren Commission testimony, in which he indicated he saw an exit wound on the far back of Kennedy's head, I'd appreciate your bringing them to my attention.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Pat Speer

[David Josephs]

I don't know what Dr. McClelland said in later years, but he clearly believed, in November 1963, that a bullet exited from the wound he described at the back of the head; repeated essentially the same thing when he testified (1964); and certainly said that to me and Pat Valentino when we conducted a detailed filmed interview in 1989.

The problem with this case is that many folks said one thing in 1963/1964, and then, years later, read books or articles, formed opinions about what happened, and then those opinions affected their own recollections. Always its best to deal with the earliest recorded recollection. That's true in a simple auto accident, and its also true in the case of the Kennedy assassination.

DSL

7/30/12; 4 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

The reasons you think we should believe McClelland saw a wound on the far back of Kennedy's head are the very reasons I don't believe he saw such a wound: his earliest statements.

"The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." Dr. McClelland's report on the death of President Kennedy, written on 11-22-63.

"I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind." Dr. Robert McClelland, as quoted by Richard Dudman in the 12-18-63 St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

If you know of any statements by McClelland made prior to his Warren Commission testimony, in which he indicated he saw an exit wound on the far back of Kennedy's head, I'd appreciate your bringing them to my attention.

Wasn't McClelland's report coroborrated by the Father who gave the last rites? I believe it was mentioned in JFK/Unspeakable that he saw a great and terrible wound over the left eye...

and Mike.. both Zap and Sitzman tell us how Zap films the limo coming down Houton and turning onto Elm.. no breaks, no stops...

the mathematics of the corner turn, frame #'s and other films that also do NOT capture the extra wide turn as described by Truly and the fact that the transition from a camera at full stop to instant start and instantly having a perfect interprocket image EXACTLY on the frame lines seems a bit too much to swallow,,,

There is no start up lightened frames as we see on Z001... looks much more like a splice and reflim than a start/stop of the camera.

[Mike Rago]

and Mike.. both Zap and Sitzman tell us how Zap films the limo coming down Houton and turning onto Elm.. no breaks, no stops...

the mathematics of the corner turn, frame #'s and other films that also do NOT capture the extra wide turn as described by Truly and the fact that the transition from a camera at full stop to instant start and instantly having a perfect interprocket image EXACTLY on the frame lines seems a bit too much to swallow,,,

There is no start up lightened frames as we see on Z001... looks much more like a splice and reflim than a start/stop of the camera.

I am talking about the images we see on Zapruder frame 313 which show ejected bone from the head area. Surely you are not going to say that the people who altered the film added the ejected bone in order to cover up the fact that someone operated on the top of the presidents head sometime between Parkland and Bethesda?

Edited July 30, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Daniel Gallup]

I don't know what Dr. McClelland said in later years, but he clearly believed, in November 1963, that a bullet exited from the wound he described at the back of the head; repeated essentially the same thing when he testified (1964); and certainly said that to me and Pat Valentino when we conducted a detailed filmed interview in 1989.

The problem with this case is that many folks said one thing in 1963/1964, and then, years later, read books or articles, formed opinions about what happened, and then those opinions affected their own recollections. Always its best to deal with the earliest recorded recollection. That's true in a simple auto accident, and its also true in the case of the Kennedy assassination.

DSL

7/30/12; 4 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

The reasons you think we should believe McClelland saw a wound on the far back of Kennedy's head are the very reasons I don't believe he saw such a wound: his earliest statements.

"The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." Dr. McClelland's report on the death of President Kennedy, written on 11-22-63.

"I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind." Dr. Robert McClelland, as quoted by Richard Dudman in the 12-18-63 St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

If you know of any statements by McClelland made prior to his Warren Commission testimony, in which he indicated he saw an exit wound on the far back of Kennedy's head, I'd appreciate your bringing them to my attention.

Pat, "gunshot of the left temple" does not specifiy the direction; in fact, in plain and simple language, the closest meaning would be: "gunshot wound to the left temple." As for Dudman's dispatch, this is three weeks after the assassination, and we are dependent upon Dudman's accurate reporting, how he stated the question,etc. Recall Pat, that the Dallas doctors to the best of our knowledge were not aware of any wound in the back on the day of the assassination. Carrico did a manual examination underneath his clothing and found nothing. Rather, the witnesses to the anterior throat wound were unanimous in describing it as having the appearance of an entrance wound, at least that day. Then the Secret Service came and presented Perry with the autopsy report that it was an exit wound. I am rather certain this is prior to Dec. 18. Depending on the dates when pressure was exerted on the Dallas doctors to change their original opinion, McClelland's utterance to Dudman may simply reflect that pressure, and a desire to avoid controversy. That he gave the WC such a careful description of the wound in the back of the head I think is sufficient to challenge your interpretation of his report.

[Mike Rago]

We have information that was not available to the autopsy doctors. We know how the head wounds were elaborated.

In this post I present evidence which shows that there were two separate wounds to the head. The back of the head profile is normal at the time of the Moorman photo but is definitely not normal at the time of Zapruder frame 337.

http://educationforu...=45#entry256195

BTW, if the Zapruder film is a fake then the Moorman photo must also be a fake because the Moorman photo also shows missing skull on the top of the head.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Steven Skeen]

I appreciate the fact that no credibility was given to Morningstar's body switch theory (another good researcher who has ventured a bit too far into the quagmire, imo). I do approve of the techniques he used to validate the alteration of Zapruder's film: ie, timing of motorcade flashing lights and stance of bystanders in motion. Why would CIA hold the film for so long while other pictures confiscated were never released or released with blots and mars.So I do not approve of Zapruder references for head damage. Daniel and David, I have spoken to Parkland Dr's and can cite medical sources swearing there is no way the body could be altered so significantly in the brevity of time allowed even with wax, makeup, grafts, etc,etc, and David, thank you for keeping the disagreement civil. I mildly and respectfully regret that the wording of my stem post was not more gracious. The fault I find with this forum is unwarranted pseudointellectualism and repugnant arrogance. Also thank you for using the word "reread". Your book is fascinating to me. I know you have critics, but I have not read any of them though I know of Posner's name.

[Pat Speer]

I don't know what Dr. McClelland said in later years, but he clearly believed, in November 1963, that a bullet exited from the wound he described at the back of the head; repeated essentially the same thing when he testified (1964); and certainly said that to me and Pat Valentino when we conducted a detailed filmed interview in 1989.

The problem with this case is that many folks said one thing in 1963/1964, and then, years later, read books or articles, formed opinions about what happened, and then those opinions affected their own recollections. Always its best to deal with the earliest recorded recollection. That's true in a simple auto accident, and its also true in the case of the Kennedy assassination.

DSL

7/30/12; 4 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

The reasons you think we should believe McClelland saw a wound on the far back of Kennedy's head are the very reasons I don't believe he saw such a wound: his earliest statements.

"The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." Dr. McClelland's report on the death of President Kennedy, written on 11-22-63.

"I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind." Dr. Robert McClelland, as quoted by Richard Dudman in the 12-18-63 St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

If you know of any statements by McClelland made prior to his Warren Commission testimony, in which he indicated he saw an exit wound on the far back of Kennedy's head, I'd appreciate your bringing them to my attention.

Pat, "gunshot of the left temple" does not specifiy the direction; in fact, in plain and simple language, the closest meaning would be: "gunshot wound to the left temple." As for Dudman's dispatch, this is three weeks after the assassination, and we are dependent upon Dudman's accurate reporting, how he stated the question,etc. Recall Pat, that the Dallas doctors to the best of our knowledge were not aware of any wound in the back on the day of the assassination. Carrico did a manual examination underneath his clothing and found nothing. Rather, the witnesses to the anterior throat wound were unanimous in describing it as having the appearance of an entrance wound, at least that day. Then the Secret Service came and presented Perry with the autopsy report that it was an exit wound. I am rather certain this is prior to Dec. 18. Depending on the dates when pressure was exerted on the Dallas doctors to change their original opinion, McClelland's utterance to Dudman may simply reflect that pressure, and a desire to avoid controversy. That he gave the WC such a careful description of the wound in the back of the head I think is sufficient to challenge your interpretation of his report.

McClelland is still alive. He has spoken on what he witnessed many times. He has made it quite clear that he did not see an entrance on the left temple, and that he, in fact, did not see an "entrance" anywhere on Kennedy's head. He saw ONE head wound and only one head wound. His testimony indicated that this wound was toward the back of Kennedy's head. And yet prior to his testimony, McClelland had told Dudman--whose reporting on this has never been questioned--that he'd seen no evidence the shot came from the front.

This was no one time thing, mind you. McClelland has repeated many times since that he didn't believe the fatal head shot was fired from the front until he saw the Zapruder film, and noticed the back-and-to-the-left motion of Kennedy's head.

McClelland's statements, taken in sum, do not support that he saw a gaping hole low on the back of Kennedy's head.

[David Lifton]

I don't know what Dr. McClelland said in later years, but he clearly believed, in November 1963, that a bullet exited from the wound he described at the back of the head; repeated essentially the same thing when he testified (1964); and certainly said that to me and Pat Valentino when we conducted a detailed filmed interview in 1989.

The problem with this case is that many folks said one thing in 1963/1964, and then, years later, read books or articles, formed opinions about what happened, and then those opinions affected their own recollections. Always its best to deal with the earliest recorded recollection. That's true in a simple auto accident, and its also true in the case of the Kennedy assassination.

DSL

7/30/12; 4 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

The reasons you think we should believe McClelland saw a wound on the far back of Kennedy's head are the very reasons I don't believe he saw such a wound: his earliest statements.

"The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." Dr. McClelland's report on the death of President Kennedy, written on 11-22-63.

"I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind." Dr. Robert McClelland, as quoted by Richard Dudman in the 12-18-63 St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

If you know of any statements by McClelland made prior to his Warren Commission testimony, in which he indicated he saw an exit wound on the far back of Kennedy's head, I'd appreciate your bringing them to my attention.

Pat, "gunshot of the left temple" does not specifiy the direction; in fact, in plain and simple language, the closest meaning would be: "gunshot wound to the left temple." As for Dudman's dispatch, this is three weeks after the assassination, and we are dependent upon Dudman's accurate reporting, how he stated the question,etc. Recall Pat, that the Dallas doctors to the best of our knowledge were not aware of any wound in the back on the day of the assassination. Carrico did a manual examination underneath his clothing and found nothing. Rather, the witnesses to the anterior throat wound were unanimous in describing it as having the appearance of an entrance wound, at least that day. Then the Secret Service came and presented Perry with the autopsy report that it was an exit wound. I am rather certain this is prior to Dec. 18. Depending on the dates when pressure was exerted on the Dallas doctors to change their original opinion, McClelland's utterance to Dudman may simply reflect that pressure, and a desire to avoid controversy. That he gave the WC such a careful description of the wound in the back of the head I think is sufficient to challenge your interpretation of his report.

McClelland is still alive. He has spoken on what he witnessed many times. He has made it quite clear that he did not see an entrance on the left temple, and that he, in fact, did not see an "entrance" anywhere on Kennedy's head. He saw ONE head wound and only one head wound. His testimony indicated that this wound was toward the back of Kennedy's head. And yet prior to his testimony, McClelland had told Dudman--whose reporting on this has never been questioned--that he'd seen no evidence the shot came from the front.

This was no one time thing, mind you. McClelland has repeated many times since that he didn't believe the fatal head shot was fired from the front until he saw the Zapruder film, and noticed the back-and-to-the-left motion of Kennedy's head.

McClelland's statements, taken in sum, do not support that he saw a gaping hole low on the back of Kennedy's head.

Your post(s) are very misleading.

McClelland talked about the gaping hole in the back of JFK's head in this Warren Commision testimony (which is so detailed that JKK researcher Wallace Milam used to refer to it as a "gift to history"); in his interview with Stanhope Gould and Sylvia Chase, in the fall of 1988 (in a major TV documentary in which I was the medical consultant); in the Spring 1989 filmed interview filmed by me (and Pat Valentino) in which he affirmed the accuracy of the so-called "McClelland drawing."

So. . .what on earth are you talking about?

As to his original written statement that JFK died of a gunshot wound of the left temple, the only reasonable inference is that, in that document, written on the afternoon of 11/22/63, he was talking of an entry bullet wound which he believed he saw.

Admittedly, he did not mention the gaping exit wound at the back of the head in that original written statement; but he certainly was NOT talking about a bullet exit wound in the left temple (or do you believe that is what he was reporting?)

As to the exit wound at the back of the head, and what McClelland said about that: I don't know what venue you are taking your quotes from, but they are contrary to (a) McClelland's Warren Commission testimony; (b ) his 1988 interview with Stanhope Gould and Sylvia Chase; and (c ) my own Spring 1989 filmed interview.

Stanhope, you may know (or perhaps you don't) was the producer of the award winning Watergate coverage, during the Cronkite era at CBS-TV network.

After the interviews of the key Best Evidence witnesses, he made a public statement in SanFrancisco that David Lifton's book and video presented "courtoom quality evidence" that President Kennedy's body had been intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda.

I truly to not have the time to waste debating what has been established decades ago. Only by putting on some peculiar lense is it possible for you to filter the data so that:

(a) There was not a gaping exit wound at the back of the head (despite McClelland's WC testimony, and the filmed interviews I have cited)

(b ) McClelland, who was a key witness to all this, and made clear that he was, in a number of venues, said the opposite (!).

Have some respect for the data, please.

Have you bothered to watch the TV documentary which features his observations that there was a bullet exit wound at the back of JFK's head,and that he saw the cerebellum exposed and damaged. . .? Do you think he made all that up??

DSL

8/16/12; Spelling errors corrected (rather belatedly; sorry. DSL.)

Edited August 17, 2012 by David Lifton