The lonesome Parkland Doc Dr. Kenneth Salyer

[Karl Kinaski]

He is the one and only Parkland Doc, ( a surgical resident in 1963) who says Kennedys right side of the scull was completely missing at Parkland, which is bullxxxx...interesting - he made a big career...

Quote 6th floor mausoleum web-site:

Videotaped oral history with Dr. Kenneth Salyer. An internationally recognized pioneer in craniofacial surgery, Salyer is the founding chairman and director of the International Craniofacial Institute at Medical City Dallas Hospital. In 1963 Salyer was a first-year surgical resident at Parkland Memorial Hospital and participated in the treatment of President Kennedy in Trauma Room One. His personal memories of the president's head wound do not correspond with subsequently published autopsy photographs.

Interview conducted at The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza on April 11, 2008 by Stephen Fagin, Associate Curator. The interview is one hour and seventeen minutes long.

The video attached to this record is an excerpt. The entire interview is available in our Reading Room to on-site researchers or by submitting a Rights & Reproductions Request Form.

Cl.quote

A bad observer, that Doc.

KK

[Pat Speer]

Salyer was far from alone...

From patspeer.com, chapter 18c;

"Well, hold on right there," you must be thinking, "is it really likely every doctor seeing Kennedy at the hospital on 11-22 would make this same mistake, and confuse a wound high on the head above the ear with a wound on the back of the head oozing cerebellum?" No, probably not. Which is why it's important to recall that every doctor didn't. As discussed, Dr. Burkley was aware of but one wound on Kennedy's head, a large wound by his temple. As far as the Parkland staff, well, Dr. Baxter testified before the Warren Commission that the wound was temporal and parietal, and thus near the ear, and not on the back of the head. Dr. Salyer, as well, testified that the wound was in the "right temporal area," and thus near the ear, and not on the back of the head. While Dr. Giesecke testified before the Commission that the wound was on the left side of the head, he also claimed that it was a large wound stretching from the vertex to the ear, and the brow-line to the occiput, and thus not the hole on the back of the head recalled by others. In fact, he later admitted to Vincent Palamara that although he "did not examine the President's head and should never have said anything about the wounds," he had nevertheless concluded "all entrance wounds were from the rear."

And then there's the Johnny-come-latelys--doctors only marginally involved in Kennedy's treatment whose statements regarding the head wound location came many years later... While Dr. Don Curtis did in fact testify before the Warren Commission his recollection as to the head wound location was not recorded till many years later, when he at first told researcher Brad Parker the "McClelland" drawing was "essentially" correct, and then specified to researcher Vincent Palamara that the wound was on the "posterior lateral surface of the skull," the side of the head. Dr. William Midgett's story is similar. While his presence in the emergency room was confirmed by the Warren Commission testimony of several nurses, his impressions were not recorded until decades later when he was interviewed first by Gerald Posner and then Wallace Milam. He is reported to have told Posner the wound was "more parietal than occipital" and to have told Milam it was an approximately 6 cm wound in the parietal area behind the ear. This is NOT a wound on the far back of the head oozing cerebellum.

Nor was the wound described by Dr. Donald Seldin. When contacted by researcher Vincent Palamara in 1998, Seldin is reported to have claimed that the bullet exploded the skull, and that the "frontal, parietal, and temporal bones were shattered." No mention of the occipital bone. While Seldin, apparently, was somewhat confused, telling Palamara the bullet struck Kennedy in the forehead (perhaps he meant upon exit), he was most adamant that his recollections not be used to spread doubts, telling Palamara "I believe that the official story is accurate in all details."

And then there's Grossman... While there is almost no record of Dr. Grossman's presence in Emergency Room One on 11-22-63, he emerged in 1981 with claims of having been at Dr. Clark's side when Kennedy's wounds were studied. His statements and articles not only reflect that he alone, of all the doctors to work on or inspect Kennedy at Parkland, noted an entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head in his hair, but that he also recalled seeing a large exit wound on the right side of Kennedy's head above his ear. Although this supports my conclusions regarding the wound locations, I nevertheless suspect Dr. Grossman is full of hooey. It just smells to high heaven that the only Parkland doctor claiming to see an entrance wound on the back of JFK's head was a doctor no one else remembered even being there, who failed to come forward for 17 years or more. There's also this: while Dr. Grossman reportedly told the ARRB in 1997 that the entrance wound he saw was "a circular puncture in the occipital region...approximately 2 cm in diameter, near the EOP, centerline, or perhaps just right of center, through which he could see brain tissue which he believed was cerebellum" (which is in the same location as, but much larger than, the wound described in the autopsy report), a November 22, 2003 article by Frank D. Roylance in the Baltimore Sun based upon an interview with Grossman reported that "Grossman and Clark saw a small wound about an inch in diameter on the upper part of the back of his head, just to the right of the midline...filled with damaged brain tissue" (which would appear to be a reference to the supposed cowlick entrance). So, did Grossman move the location of the entrance wound he and he alone "saw" to kiss up to those holding the wound was in the cowlick? I don't know but it's just hard to believe anything he says...

And that's not the end of the Parkland witnesses claiming the wound was NOT on the back of the head. Should one choose to look beyond Grossman, one can find Sharon Calloway. Calloway, an x-ray intern at Parkland on the day of the shooting, performed an oral history interview for the Sixth Floor Museum on 1-27-02, and claimed she saw the back of Kennedy's head in the hallway before he was moved into Trauma Room One. She claimed: "The top of his head was gone... One of the doctors came down the hall shaking his head and he said it looked like someone had dropped a ripe watermelon on the floor. This is what the top of his head looked like. And we could see that. We could see his head. It wasn't draped yet."

And should one still refuse to believe that there was no large exit wound low on the back of Kennedy's head and that the rotation of Kennedy on the hospital stretcher led to confusion about his head wound location, one should know that, no matter the explanation, such confusions occur. In the early 1990's, now Associate Professor Daniel Simons of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana created a video of six people passing basketballs back and forth, while moving around in a circle. Simons played this video to unsuspecting subjects, asking them how many passes were made, or whether the women in the video made more passes than the men. No matter. The passing was just a distraction. During the middle of the short video-taped passing demonstration, a man in a gorilla suit walked into frame and stood in the middle of the basketball players. What Simons really wanted to know was if anyone counting the number of passes would notice this man in the gorilla suit. He got his answer, which continues to confound people to this day. He found that, upon first viewing, only about 50% of those looking straight at--no, actually studying--a video of a man in a gorilla suit, had any recollection of seeing him, when their attention was drawn to unrelated details. One can view this video, here. http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php

The application of Simons' experiment to the Kennedy case should be obvious. From the failure of so many to note the gorilla in the room one can easily extrapolate that the team trying to save Kennedy's life was so focused on trying to save his life that the exact location of his head wound was only a fuzzy afterthought...prone to manipulation...

No, not deliberate manipulation, but accidental. As the testimony of the Parkland witnesses, which came after Dr. Clark's observation of cerebellum had been made public, reflected a greater degree of cerebellum sightings than the original statements of these witnesses, and as the location of the wound described by the witnesses coming forward in the 80's, which came after the publication of the so-called McClelland drawing showing an occipital wound, were centered on the occipital bone to a greater degree than the wound described previously, it's reasonable to assume that social pressures, "groupthink," if you will, was in part responsible for so many of these witnesses thinking the wound was further back on the skull than as shown in the autopsy photos.

A study reported in the July 2011 issue of Science Magazine supports this probability. In this study, participants were 1) shown an eyewitness-style documentary in groups of five, 2) brought back individually three days later and asked questions about what they'd observed, 3) brought back four days later and shown the answers of those tested at the same time as them, 4) asked the questions again, 5) brought back again 7 days later and told that the answers of the others they'd been shown the week before had been random answers, and may or may not have been the actual answers of those with whom they'd originally viewed the documentary, and 6) asked the same questions again, after being told to rely on their original memories. The participants were then debriefed, with the results of those suspicious they were being manipulated thrown out.

The results were impressive. While some of the answers of others shown the participants a week after viewing the documentary were 100% wrong, and not even the real answers given by the others, 68.3% of the participants answered these questions in accordance with how they'd been told the others had responded, even though they'd answered these questions correctly only four days before. That this wasn't simply a failure of memory is proven by a control test, in which only 15.5% of those getting an answer right three days after viewing the documentary got it wrong 14 days after viewing the documentary. This suggests that over 50% of the participants changed their answers to fit in with the crowd.

That this wasn't just a change of answer, but an actual change of memory, for many of those tested, moreover, was demonstrated by the results of the final test. 40.8% of the participants who got a question correct, and then changed it to fit in with the crowd, stood by their incorrect answer after being told the answers of others they'd been shown had been randomly generated, and that they were now to rely exclusively upon their original memories. Disturbingly, this suggests that the memories of a significant percentage of the public can be changed, permanently, by being told what their peers remember, even if what they're told is something they at one time knew was untrue.

Memories are fragile. The recollections of the Parkland witnesses, co-workers who undoubtedly discussed what they saw with other co-workers, most if not all of whom would have been familiar with Dr. Clark's description of the wound, are just not as reliable as many would like us to believe.

And should this explanation not suffice, and should one still refuse to believe that the excitement of a trauma room can lead to mistakes in bullet wound identification (and/or that trauma room physicians are not properly trained to judge the direction of bullet wounds) one should know that Wake Forest University indirectly studied this from 1987-1992, by comparing the reports of trauma specialists with the corresponding reports of forensic pathologists. This study, as described in an April 28, 1993 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that, with multiple gunshot wound victims, trauma specialists mistakenly identified the number of shots or the direction of fire 74% of the time, and that, even with single shot victims with through and through wounds, they were mistaken 37% of the time. Doctors make mistakes. Lots of 'em...

[Karl Kinaski]

edit

Edited March 27, 2013 by Karl Kinaski

[Karl Kinaski]

A little bit of common sense: You don't try to reanimate a gunshot victim with the complete right side of it's skull and one third of the brain missing. Salyer and the other "complete right side missing" docs exactly want us to believe that medical bullxxxx...whats next: to tell us, that it is a normal procedure to reanimate a person with his head cut off?...Salyer ist a storyteller...

Edited March 31, 2013 by Karl Kinaski

[Robert Prudhomme]

edit

Mr. Speer

Are you suggesting the medical witnesses at Parkland Memorial ER suffered from a form of mass delusion, brought on by Dr. Clark's singular observation of cerebellar material protruding from the wound in JFK's head?

[Pat Speer]

edit

Mr. Speer

Are you suggesting the medical witnesses at Parkland Memorial ER suffered from a form of mass delusion, brought on by Dr. Clark's singular observation of cerebellar material protruding from the wound in JFK's head?

Nope. Not exactly. If one reads the actual statements of the medical witnesses, as opposed to the spin put on their statements by some, one will find that most, but by no means all, of them thought the wound was further back on the head than shown in the autopsy photos. One will also find, however, that most of these thought the wound further forward than where many if not most CTs believe it to have been (the location of the wound in the so-called McClelland drawing). This creates a dilemma, IMO.

One must either trust the "medical witnesses" and reject the proposition the wound was LOW on the back of Kennedy's head, or distrust these witnesses and assume it was LOW on the back of the head. If one distrusts these witnesses, and assumes it was LOW n the back of the head, however, one must explain why this is more logical than assuming the wound was where it's depicted in the autopsy photos.

[Robert Prudhomme]

With all due respect, Mr. Speer, I cannot see a conflict between the location of the back of the head wound, as seen in the drawing approved by Dr. McClelland in Josiah Thompson's 1967 book "Six Seconds in Dallas", and the location of the same wound as described by the majority of the Parkland doctors in their Warren Commission testimony from 1964.

The majority of doctors described the back of head wound as being in the occipito-parietal region of the skull. While not all of the doctors actually viewed the wound, pinpointing its location was, in most cases, a simple process of elimination. In other words, if JFK was in a supine position, he was lying with the back of his head (occipito-parietal) resting on the table. As there was no wound visible on any other part of his head, it stood to reason the large gaping wound had to be in the one location not visible to them. This became painfully obvious once JFK had received a blood transfusion and chest compressions were being performed on him. With each compression, as it was observed, a great gush of blood was seen to come out from the hidden region at the back of JFK's head.

For comparison purposes, here is the drawing from Josiah Thompson's book Six Seconds in Dallas, approved by Dr. Robert McClelland, and a drawing showing the location and boundaries of the bones of the skull. Considering that the occipital bone is located only at the rear of the head, and that the McClelland drawing appears to centre the wound on the boundary of the occipital and parietal bones, I must reiterate my belief that no conflict exists beween Dr. McClelland's description of the back of head wound and the description of the same wound by the majority of Parkland doctors present in the ER room that day.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Pat Speer]

I discuss this issue in detail, Robert, in chapters 18c and 18d of my website. Here is a sample:

So...how many of these witnesses actually support the accuracy of the "McClelland" drawing, which shows a wound LOW on the back of the head, BEHIND the right ear. I count 7 of 18. If people claim a theory is supported by ALL the witnesses, and but 7 of 18 of these witnesses actually support this theory, well...something's wrong.

P.S. 2 of these 7, Custer and O'Connor, described the wound after the scalp was peeled back, and claimed the wound stretched from front to back. The pictures above were then cherry-picked to show them pointing to the very back, and were used to deceive Groden's readers. As a result, the count is really 5 of 18.

Since when is 5 of 18..."all" or even "most"?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Once again, I am somewhat confused by the point you are trying to make here. The wound depicted in the drawing approved by Dr. McClelland can hardly be described as being low in the back of the head. Almost 50% of the wound in the drawing is above the top of the ear. If you look at the diagrams below, it is obvious that the edge of the occipital bone, in the area of the right rear of the skull, is pretty much level with the top of the ear.

I would say, without hesitation, that the drawing approved by Dr. McClelland shows the wound extending well into the parietal region of the head, making this an occipito-parietal wound, as claimed by the majority of Parkland witnesses, and amply displayed by the witnesses in the majority of the photos you posted.

[Thomas Graves]

Once again, I am somewhat confused by the point you are trying to make here. The wound depicted in the drawing approved by Dr. McClelland can hardly be described as being low in the back of the head. Almost 50% of the wound in the drawing is above the top of the ear. If you look at the diagrams below, it is obvious that the edge of the occipital bone, in the area of the right rear of the skull, is pretty much level with the top of the ear.

Head_Image_sml.jpg

untitled.png

I would say, without hesitation, that the drawing approved by Dr. McClelland shows the wound extending well into the parietal region of the head, making this an occipito-parietal wound, as claimed by the majority of Parkland witnesses, and amply displayed by the witnesses in the majority of the photos you posted.

Robert,

I agree with you. The McClelland Drawing is drawn from about the same perspective as a seven-foot man looking down on a six-footer.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Edited May 8, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Prudhomme]

Once again, I am somewhat confused by the point you are trying to make here. The wound depicted in the drawing approved by Dr. McClelland can hardly be described as being low in the back of the head. Almost 50% of the wound in the drawing is above the top of the ear. If you look at the diagrams below, it is obvious that the edge of the occipital bone, in the area of the right rear of the skull, is pretty much level with the top of the ear.

Head_Image_sml.jpg

untitled.png

I would say, without hesitation, that the drawing approved by Dr. McClelland shows the wound extending well into the parietal region of the head, making this an occipito-parietal wound, as claimed by the majority of Parkland witnesses, and amply displayed by the witnesses in the majority of the photos you posted.

Robert,

I agree with you. The McClelland Drawing is drawn from about the same perspective as a seven-foot man looking down on a six-footer.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Mr. Graves

It is nice to see that we agree on so many things. As my late father was fond of saying, "Great minds think alike and fools seldom differ; take your pick, son."

[Thomas Graves]

Once again, I am somewhat confused by the point you are trying to make here. The wound depicted in the drawing approved by Dr. McClelland can hardly be described as being low in the back of the head. Almost 50% of the wound in the drawing is above the top of the ear. If you look at the diagrams below, it is obvious that the edge of the occipital bone, in the area of the right rear of the skull, is pretty much level with the top of the ear.

Head_Image_sml.jpg

untitled.png

I would say, without hesitation, that the drawing approved by Dr. McClelland shows the wound extending well into the parietal region of the head, making this an occipito-parietal wound, as claimed by the majority of Parkland witnesses, and amply displayed by the witnesses in the majority of the photos you posted.

Robert,

I agree with you. The McClelland Drawing is drawn from about the same perspective as a seven-foot man looking down on a six-footer.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Mr. Graves

It is nice to see that we agree on so many things. As my late father was fond of saying, "Great minds think alike and fools seldom differ; take your pick, son."

Robert,

Well seein' as I'm into gold mining, too, is it ok if I take my pick and my shovel?

--Tommy

[Pat Speer]

Once again, I am somewhat confused by the point you are trying to make here. The wound depicted in the drawing approved by Dr. McClelland can hardly be described as being low in the back of the head. Almost 50% of the wound in the drawing is above the top of the ear. If you look at the diagrams below, it is obvious that the edge of the occipital bone, in the area of the right rear of the skull, is pretty much level with the top of the ear.

Head_Image_sml.jpg

untitled.png

I would say, without hesitation, that the drawing approved by Dr. McClelland shows the wound extending well into the parietal region of the head, making this an occipito-parietal wound, as claimed by the majority of Parkland witnesses, and amply displayed by the witnesses in the majority of the photos you posted.

Wrong. Take a look at the location of the occipital bone. It rests almost entirely below the top of the ear. Now, consider that virtually all CTs assume the Harper fragment was occipital bone, and that cerebellum was hanging out the defect. This places the wound in the occipital bone, barely stretching into the parietal bone. This, moreover, is what is depicted in the "McClelland" drawing. Now, take a look at the location of the wound in the witness photos. How many of them depicted a wound centered at or below the top of the ear?

Beverly Oliver points out a large wound at the level of the ear and above. She represents 1 witness whose recollections are consistent with a wound at the low right rear.

Phil Willis points out a wound above the level of his right ear. This means only 1 of 2 witnesses so far discussed have had recollections consistent with a wound at the low right rear.

Marilyn Willis points out a wound on top of her head. This lowers the ratio to 1 of 3 witnesses.

Ed Hoffman points out a wound at the top of the back of his head. This lowers it further to 1 of 4 witnesses.

Ronald Jones points out a wound above and in back of his ear. This means the recollections of but 1 of 5 witnesses so far discussed are consistent with what Groden, Aguilar, Mantik, and Wecht have been feeding us.

Charles Carrico points out a wound on the back of his head above his ear. The ratio drops to 1 of 6 witnesses.

Richard Dulaney points out a wound at the top of his head. It spirals downward to 1 of 7 witnesses.

Paul Peters points out a wound above his ear. It's clear now that only 1 of 8 witnesses had recollections consistent with what so many have long claimed.

Kenneth Salyer points out a wound on the side of the head, by the ear. It bottoms out at 1 of 9 witnesses.

Robert McClelland points out a wound on the back of his head, both below and above the top of the ear. This means but 2 of 10 witnesses so far discussed had recollections consistent with a wound at the low right rear.

Charles Crenshaw points out a wound mostly behind the ear. He lifts the ratio back to 3 of 11 witnesses.

Audrey Bell points out a wound at the level of her ear. The ratio soars to 4 of 12 witnesses...1 in 3.

Theran Ward points out a wound by the ear. It drops back to 4 of 13 witnesses.

Aubrey Rike points out a wound on the back of the head above the ear. The ratio drops to 4 of 14.

Paul O'Connor points out a wound behind the ear. The ratio rises back to 5 of 15 witnesses.

Floyd Riebe points out a wound behind the ear. Now, 6 of the 16 witnesses have depicted a wound at the low right rear.

Jerrol Custer points out a wound behind the ear. Now, 7 of the 17 witnesses have depicted a wound consistent with the wound described in the conspiracy literature.

Frank O'Neill points out a wound on the back of his head above the ear.

So there you have it. Only 7 of these 18 witnesses can honestly be claimed to have described a wound at the "low right rear" a la Mantik and Wecht, at the "bottom of the back of the head," a la Lifton, or in the location depicted in the "McClelland" drawing, a la Groden. 7 of 18, need it be said, is not the "almost unanimous" claimed by Mantik and Wecht, based on the research of Aguilar, nor the "every" purported by Groden.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Robert Prudhomme]

If Dr. Carrico points out a wound on the back of JFK's head above his ear, perhaps you could explain his testimony to the Warren Commission on March 25, 1964:

"Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the nature of the head wound which you observed on the President?
Dr. CARRICO - The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura."

Edited May 8, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Daniel Gallup]

Well Pat at least you are consistent with Dr. Boswell and Bill O'Reilly, who asserted that the top of Kennedy's head was blown off.