The lonesome Parkland Doc Dr. Kenneth Salyer

[Pat Speer]

Mr. Speer

Mr. Hill's story just gets better and better as time goes by. In his statement of November 30, 1963, Jackie is merely raising out of her seat as if reaching for something that has blown out.

By April 6, 2012, we get this grand embellishment of the same event. "When the President was hit in the head with the third bullet, the explosion was so severe in the head that bone fragments and blood and brain matter erupted from the wound. Some of it came off and went to the right rear, across the trunk of the car. She saw that and she was trying to reach some of that material."

Of course, before you go about defending Mr. Hill's remarks of 2012, think of how hard it would be for matter ejected upwards and forwards from JFK's skull, from a shot from the rear and an exit wound toward the front of the head, to land behind him on the trunk of the limo.

This is why witness testimony from a week or a few months following an event is so much more reliable than testimony from the same person fifteen or forty-nine years after that same event. People age, and their memory suffers for it. Mr. Hill would also be under great pressure, over the years, to accept the official story, perhaps to the point he would begin to doubt his own memory.

I find it very interesting that you describe Mr. Hill's original description of JFK's head wound, in his WC testimony and his original statement of Nov. 30, 1963, to be vague. They are nothing of the sort. He clearly states the wound to be in the right rear, not the right side and near the top as he recalls fifty years later.

The reason I find your reference of Mr. Hill's description as being "vague" interesting is that this seems to be the standard Lone Nut answer whenever Mr. Hill's descriptions of the wound are discussed. I spent a good deal of time on the JFK Assassination Forum, a veritable hotbed of Lone Nuts and insanity, and this was always how Mr. Hill's testimony was described.

Mr. Speer, do Lone Nuts have a handbook they work from? Are there instructions in it to always refer to Mr. Hill's early statement and testimony as "vague" and thereby denigrate what is damaging evidence to the Warren Commission?

No, Robert, there is no handbook that LNs work from. Although I am not a LN, I have discussed the case with enough of them to feel quite sure they are lone nut theorists, much as many of us here are conspiracy theorists. They are assassination buffs who have come to a different conclusion than us, that is all. Many of them come to this conclusion for reasons other than the evidence, much as many CTs come to be CTs for reasons other than the evidence.

As far as Hill's original statements being vague, that is not spin, but simple fact. What does "right rear" mean? While one might be tempted to assume this means "right rear quadrant" you know what happens when you assume. Hill continues to say "right rear," but now sometimes adds "above the ear" or points out a location "above the ear." Do you have any evidence that his opinion on this has changed? Of course not. It's perfectly reasonable, then, to gather from Hill's statements that he considers the area above the ear to be on the "right rear" of the skull.

And I sort of see his point. If someone hit me from behind on a location above my right ear, I would almost certainly tell people I was hit on the back of the head. Our minds are face-centric, in that we tend to think of our faces as the front half of our head, and everything else on the back half.

[Daniel Gallup]

Pat, there is nothing vague about Hill's "right rear" when put in the context of the occipitoparietal wound described so eloquently by Perry, McClelland, Peters, Jones, Curtis, Crenshaw et al. at Parkland. Your failure to locate the description in context of other similar descriptions, and instead relying on later memories polluted by corrupted evidence, is a fatal flaw in your argument.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Mr. Speer

Mr. Hill's story just gets better and better as time goes by. In his statement of November 30, 1963, Jackie is merely raising out of her seat as if reaching for something that has blown out.

By April 6, 2012, we get this grand embellishment of the same event. "When the President was hit in the head with the third bullet, the explosion was so severe in the head that bone fragments and blood and brain matter erupted from the wound. Some of it came off and went to the right rear, across the trunk of the car. She saw that and she was trying to reach some of that material."

Of course, before you go about defending Mr. Hill's remarks of 2012, think of how hard it would be for matter ejected upwards and forwards from JFK's skull, from a shot from the rear and an exit wound toward the front of the head, to land behind him on the trunk of the limo.

This is why witness testimony from a week or a few months following an event is so much more reliable than testimony from the same person fifteen or forty-nine years after that same event. People age, and their memory suffers for it. Mr. Hill would also be under great pressure, over the years, to accept the official story, perhaps to the point he would begin to doubt his own memory.

I find it very interesting that you describe Mr. Hill's original description of JFK's head wound, in his WC testimony and his original statement of Nov. 30, 1963, to be vague. They are nothing of the sort. He clearly states the wound to be in the right rear, not the right side and near the top as he recalls fifty years later.

The reason I find your reference of Mr. Hill's description as being "vague" interesting is that this seems to be the standard Lone Nut answer whenever Mr. Hill's descriptions of the wound are discussed. I spent a good deal of time on the JFK Assassination Forum, a veritable hotbed of Lone Nuts and insanity, and this was always how Mr. Hill's testimony was described.

Mr. Speer, do Lone Nuts have a handbook they work from? Are there instructions in it to always refer to Mr. Hill's early statement and testimony as "vague" and thereby denigrate what is damaging evidence to the Warren Commission?

No, Robert, there is no handbook that LNs work from. Although I am not a LN, I have discussed the case with enough of them to feel quite sure they are lone nut theorists, much as many of us here are conspiracy theorists. They are assassination buffs who have come to a different conclusion than us, that is all. Many of them come to this conclusion for reasons other than the evidence, much as many CTs come to be CTs for reasons other than the evidence.

As far as Hill's original statements being vague, that is not spin, but simple fact. What does "right rear" mean? While one might be tempted to assume this means "right rear quadrant" you know what happens when you assume. Hill continues to say "right rear," but now sometimes adds "above the ear" or points out a location "above the ear." Do you have any evidence that his opinion on this has changed? Of course not. It's perfectly reasonable, then, to gather from Hill's statements that he considers the area above the ear to be on the "right rear" of the skull.

And I sort of see his point. If someone hit me from behind on a location above my right ear, I would almost certainly tell people I was hit on the back of the head. Our minds are face-centric, in that we tend to think of our faces as the front half of our head, and everything else on the back half.

Mr. Speer

Please do not insult my intelligence. You argue in the identical fashion to all of the dyed-in-the-wool LN's I have ever dealt with. Since this thread has started, you have done nothing but denigrate back of the head wound witnesses and have argued strongly for a wound at the top right of JFK's head.

Do you believe JFK was killed by a lone assassin shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD?

[Pat Speer]

Pat, there is nothing vague about Hill's "right rear" when put in the context of the occipitoparietal wound described so eloquently by Perry, McClelland, Peters, Jones, Curtis, Crenshaw et al. at Parkland. Your failure to locate the description in context of other similar descriptions, and instead relying on later memories polluted by corrupted evidence, is a fatal flaw in your argument.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You ASSUME Perry et al saw a wound on the far back of the head, and were not completely honest when they later said the wound they saw was compatible with the autopsy photos, and then you use YOUR assumption about what they saw and believed to interpret Hill's vague description as a description of a wound on the far back of the head. Well, he has in recent years stopped being vague, and has pointed out where he saw a wound, and what he meant by "right rear" and it's NOT where you want it to be. So, what do you do? You ASSUME he has somehow been gotten to, and has taken to misrepresenting the location of the wound.

And you do this even though Hill continues to denounce the single-bullet theory, and has proven himself to be as defiant of the LN community as he is the CT community.

I mean, let's get real here. You THROW OUT all the statements that don't fit your conclusion, in order to reach your conclusion, and then say MY argument has a fatal flaw. Oy vey.

[Pat Speer]

Mr. Speer

Mr. Hill's story just gets better and better as time goes by. In his statement of November 30, 1963, Jackie is merely raising out of her seat as if reaching for something that has blown out.

By April 6, 2012, we get this grand embellishment of the same event. "When the President was hit in the head with the third bullet, the explosion was so severe in the head that bone fragments and blood and brain matter erupted from the wound. Some of it came off and went to the right rear, across the trunk of the car. She saw that and she was trying to reach some of that material."

Of course, before you go about defending Mr. Hill's remarks of 2012, think of how hard it would be for matter ejected upwards and forwards from JFK's skull, from a shot from the rear and an exit wound toward the front of the head, to land behind him on the trunk of the limo.

This is why witness testimony from a week or a few months following an event is so much more reliable than testimony from the same person fifteen or forty-nine years after that same event. People age, and their memory suffers for it. Mr. Hill would also be under great pressure, over the years, to accept the official story, perhaps to the point he would begin to doubt his own memory.

I find it very interesting that you describe Mr. Hill's original description of JFK's head wound, in his WC testimony and his original statement of Nov. 30, 1963, to be vague. They are nothing of the sort. He clearly states the wound to be in the right rear, not the right side and near the top as he recalls fifty years later.

The reason I find your reference of Mr. Hill's description as being "vague" interesting is that this seems to be the standard Lone Nut answer whenever Mr. Hill's descriptions of the wound are discussed. I spent a good deal of time on the JFK Assassination Forum, a veritable hotbed of Lone Nuts and insanity, and this was always how Mr. Hill's testimony was described.

Mr. Speer, do Lone Nuts have a handbook they work from? Are there instructions in it to always refer to Mr. Hill's early statement and testimony as "vague" and thereby denigrate what is damaging evidence to the Warren Commission?

No, Robert, there is no handbook that LNs work from. Although I am not a LN, I have discussed the case with enough of them to feel quite sure they are lone nut theorists, much as many of us here are conspiracy theorists. They are assassination buffs who have come to a different conclusion than us, that is all. Many of them come to this conclusion for reasons other than the evidence, much as many CTs come to be CTs for reasons other than the evidence.

As far as Hill's original statements being vague, that is not spin, but simple fact. What does "right rear" mean? While one might be tempted to assume this means "right rear quadrant" you know what happens when you assume. Hill continues to say "right rear," but now sometimes adds "above the ear" or points out a location "above the ear." Do you have any evidence that his opinion on this has changed? Of course not. It's perfectly reasonable, then, to gather from Hill's statements that he considers the area above the ear to be on the "right rear" of the skull.

And I sort of see his point. If someone hit me from behind on a location above my right ear, I would almost certainly tell people I was hit on the back of the head. Our minds are face-centric, in that we tend to think of our faces as the front half of our head, and everything else on the back half.

Mr. Speer

Please do not insult my intelligence. You argue in the identical fashion to all of the dyed-in-the-wool LN's I have ever dealt with. Since this thread has started, you have done nothing but denigrate back of the head wound witnesses and have argued strongly for a wound at the top right of JFK's head.

Do you believe JFK was killed by a lone assassin shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD?

I'm not the one being insulting. You clearly came to this forum without knowing anything about the members of this forum. At the bottom of my posts, I have a link to my website. On my website, there is a free online book, which is far and away the most heavily researched book on a number of facets of the assassination. In 2012, I won the Mary Ferrell-JFK Lancer award for "permanent additions to the record of the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy." I am invited to speak at this year's Wecht and Lancer conferences. I spoke at the 2009 COPA conference, and at the 2004 and 2005 Lancer conferences. I have made numerous appearances on Black OP radio, and am helping out with 2 of the videos in its ongoing 50 reasons for 50 years video series. And I've made some videos of my own, which have cumulatively received hundreds of thousands of views. So...asking me if I'm a LN, and suggesting that I'm reading from some sort of LN handbook, is just embarrassing...to YOU.

As far as "denigrating" the back of the head witnesses...give me a break. You do realize that most of the key "back of the head" witnesses came to accept they'd been mistaken, and deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos. I BELIEVE they were sincere when they did so. Your side of the argument does not. Over and over again, I see the claim "they were too scared, etc." Can't you see how insulting this is?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Did the forty-four back of head wound witnesses from Bethesda, whose HSCA interviews were suppressed by the government until the 1990's, ever come to accept they were mistaken and change their stories?

[Daniel Gallup]

Pat, there is nothing vague about Hill's "right rear" when put in the context of the occipitoparietal wound described so eloquently by Perry, McClelland, Peters, Jones, Curtis, Crenshaw et al. at Parkland. Your failure to locate the description in context of other similar descriptions, and instead relying on later memories polluted by corrupted evidence, is a fatal flaw in your argument.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You ASSUME Perry et al saw a wound on the far back of the head, and were not completely honest when they later said the wound they saw was compatible with the autopsy photos, and then you use YOUR assumption about what they saw and believed to interpret Hill's vague description as a description of a wound on the far back of the head. Well, he has in recent years stopped being vague, and has pointed out where he saw a wound, and what he meant by "right rear" and it's NOT where you want it to be. So, what do you do? You ASSUME he has somehow been gotten to, and has taken to misrepresenting the location of the wound.

And you do this even though Hill continues to denounce the single-bullet theory, and has proven himself to be as defiant of the LN community as he is the CT community.

I mean, let's get real here. You THROW OUT all the statements that don't fit your conclusion, in order to reach your conclusion, and then say MY argument has a fatal flaw. Oy vey.

I stand by my words. I will throw out later polluted memories if they contradict earliest recollections. Perry is of course just one outstanding example. There is nothing vague about the wording occipitoparietal, except to you. It has to be vague to your thinking because there is nothing occipitoparietal in those bastard autopsy photos. Oy vey is right. Your thinking is fatally flawed if you cannot discern the difference between Perry et al. on Nov 22 and their thinking 25 years later. I conclude that Hill meant "right rear" in the same manner that the Parkland doctors meant "right rear." That is a very elementary deduction. If his later view of things contradicts the "right rear" observed by a good number of Parkland doctors, I conclude, rightly, that Hill has suffered memory pollution.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Daniel Gallup

[Pat Speer]

Pat, there is nothing vague about Hill's "right rear" when put in the context of the occipitoparietal wound described so eloquently by Perry, McClelland, Peters, Jones, Curtis, Crenshaw et al. at Parkland. Your failure to locate the description in context of other similar descriptions, and instead relying on later memories polluted by corrupted evidence, is a fatal flaw in your argument.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You ASSUME Perry et al saw a wound on the far back of the head, and were not completely honest when they later said the wound they saw was compatible with the autopsy photos, and then you use YOUR assumption about what they saw and believed to interpret Hill's vague description as a description of a wound on the far back of the head. Well, he has in recent years stopped being vague, and has pointed out where he saw a wound, and what he meant by "right rear" and it's NOT where you want it to be. So, what do you do? You ASSUME he has somehow been gotten to, and has taken to misrepresenting the location of the wound.

And you do this even though Hill continues to denounce the single-bullet theory, and has proven himself to be as defiant of the LN community as he is the CT community.

I mean, let's get real here. You THROW OUT all the statements that don't fit your conclusion, in order to reach your conclusion, and then say MY argument has a fatal flaw. Oy vey.

I stand by my words. I will throw out later polluted memories if they contradict earliest recollections. Perry is of course just one outstanding example. There is nothing vague about the wording occipitoparietal, except to you. It has to be vague to your thinking because there is nothing occipitoparietal in those bastard autopsy photos. Oy vey is right. Your thinking is fatally flawed if you cannot discern the difference between Perry et al. on Nov 22 and their thinking 25 years later. I conclude that Hill meant "right rear" in the same manner that the Parkland doctors meant "right rear." That is a very elementary deduction. If his later view of things contradicts the "right rear" observed by a good number of Parkland doctors, I conclude, rightly, that Hill has suffered memory pollution.

Nice switcheroo, Daniel. I have never disputed that some of the Parkland witnesses changed their minds about the wound location. I have never suggested that by "occipitoparietal" some of them meant "above the right ear."

But HIll is a different story. You have no evidence Hill ever thought the wound was in the occipitoparietal area. He said "right rear." He later demonstrated where he meant when he said "right rear." It wasn't where you wanted it to be. For some reason, however, you feel perfectly entitled to assume his memory is in error, and that Hill really thought the wound was where he now says it was not.

Now, some might call that denigrating a witness. Hill is still alive, of course, if you'd like the historical record to show that he changed his mind about the head wound location, you should contact him and point out that to you "right rear" means occipitoparietal, and then ask him if he originally thought the wound was in the occipitoparietal area, but has since changed his mind.

I wonder what he'll say.

P.S. You know, of course, that Dr. McClelland's earliest recollection was that the wound was in the left temple. And yet you embrace his later polluted memory over his earliest recollection. Hmmm...

Edited May 15, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Did the forty-four back of head wound witnesses from Bethesda, whose HSCA interviews were suppressed by the government until the 1990's, ever come to accept they were mistaken and change their stories?

What forty-four witnesses from Bethesda?

[Karl Kinaski]

Pat, there is nothing vague about Hill's "right rear" when put in the context of the occipitoparietal wound described so eloquently by Perry, McClelland, Peters, Jones, Curtis, Crenshaw et al. at Parkland. Your failure to locate the description in context of other similar descriptions, and instead relying on later memories polluted by corrupted evidence, is a fatal flaw in your argument.

I second that.

[Daniel Gallup]

Pat, there is nothing vague about Hill's "right rear" when put in the context of the occipitoparietal wound described so eloquently by Perry, McClelland, Peters, Jones, Curtis, Crenshaw et al. at Parkland. Your failure to locate the description in context of other similar descriptions, and instead relying on later memories polluted by corrupted evidence, is a fatal flaw in your argument.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You ASSUME Perry et al saw a wound on the far back of the head, and were not completely honest when they later said the wound they saw was compatible with the autopsy photos, and then you use YOUR assumption about what they saw and believed to interpret Hill's vague description as a description of a wound on the far back of the head. Well, he has in recent years stopped being vague, and has pointed out where he saw a wound, and what he meant by "right rear" and it's NOT where you want it to be. So, what do you do? You ASSUME he has somehow been gotten to, and has taken to misrepresenting the location of the wound.

And you do this even though Hill continues to denounce the single-bullet theory, and has proven himself to be as defiant of the LN community as he is the CT community.

I mean, let's get real here. You THROW OUT all the statements that don't fit your conclusion, in order to reach your conclusion, and then say MY argument has a fatal flaw. Oy vey.

I stand by my words. I will throw out later polluted memories if they contradict earliest recollections. Perry is of course just one outstanding example. There is nothing vague about the wording occipitoparietal, except to you. It has to be vague to your thinking because there is nothing occipitoparietal in those bastard autopsy photos. Oy vey is right. Your thinking is fatally flawed if you cannot discern the difference between Perry et al. on Nov 22 and their thinking 25 years later. I conclude that Hill meant "right rear" in the same manner that the Parkland doctors meant "right rear." That is a very elementary deduction. If his later view of things contradicts the "right rear" observed by a good number of Parkland doctors, I conclude, rightly, that Hill has suffered memory pollution.

Nice switcheroo, Daniel. I have never disputed that some of the Parkland witnesses changed their minds about the wound location. I have never suggested that by "occipitoparietal" some of them meant "above the right ear."

But HIll is a different story. You have no evidence Hill ever thought the wound was in the occipitoparietal area. He said "right rear." He later demonstrated where he meant when he said "right rear." It wasn't where you wanted it to be. For some reason, however, you feel perfectly entitled to assume his memory is in error, and that Hill really thought the wound was where he now says it was not.

Now, some might call that denigrating a witness. Hill is still alive, of course, if you'd like the historical record to show that he changed his mind about the head wound location, you should contact him and point out that to you "right rear" means occipitoparietal, and then ask him if he originally thought the wound was in the occipitoparietal area, but has since changed his mind.

I wonder what he'll say.

P.S. You know, of course, that Dr. McClelland's earliest recollection was that the wound was in the left temple. And yet you embrace his later polluted memory over his earliest recollection. Hmmm...

Your butchering of McClelland's words to Dudman is beneath you. Tedious. And yes, Hill's observations cannot contradict the Parkland occipitoparietal witnesses. The body looked only one way. Wounds don't migrate (unless the chain of possession of the body is lost, then all bets are off). I don't have to call Hill but rely rather on consistent accounts of occipitoparietal wounding at Parkland. If Hill thought the wound was elsewhere, he was looking at a different body. Pat, your hermeneutical approach and mine seem to have little in common. I'll stand by mine.

[Pat Speer]

Pat, there is nothing vague about Hill's "right rear" when put in the context of the occipitoparietal wound described so eloquently by Perry, McClelland, Peters, Jones, Curtis, Crenshaw et al. at Parkland. Your failure to locate the description in context of other similar descriptions, and instead relying on later memories polluted by corrupted evidence, is a fatal flaw in your argument.

I second that.

Why would we put Hill's words in the context of people with whom he never spoke, when he is alive and has repeatedly demonstrated what he meant by his words?

It makes a lot more sense--if one is to put Hill's words in context with anyone's--to put his words in the context of Jackie's words, and her repeated statements to White and Manchester that the wound was at the top of the head.

Or, if not Jackie's words, why not the Newmans', or Zapruder's, or Jackson's, or Hargis', or Brehm's, or Sitzman's, etc, all of whom claimed the impact was by the temple--where it can be seen in the Zapruder film, the authenticity of which Hill has NEVER disputed?

Claiming Hill as a back of the head witness at this point is just desperate, IMO. And a losing argument come the 50th. I can just see it--some CT author on TV claiming Hill as a back of the head witness--and Hill popping up via satellite to tell the audience the author is full of beans, and that the wound he saw was above Kennedy's ear.

That would mark the end of the "back of the head" argument for most of America, and perhaps even the world.

[Pat Speer]

Pat, there is nothing vague about Hill's "right rear" when put in the context of the occipitoparietal wound described so eloquently by Perry, McClelland, Peters, Jones, Curtis, Crenshaw et al. at Parkland. Your failure to locate the description in context of other similar descriptions, and instead relying on later memories polluted by corrupted evidence, is a fatal flaw in your argument.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You ASSUME Perry et al saw a wound on the far back of the head, and were not completely honest when they later said the wound they saw was compatible with the autopsy photos, and then you use YOUR assumption about what they saw and believed to interpret Hill's vague description as a description of a wound on the far back of the head. Well, he has in recent years stopped being vague, and has pointed out where he saw a wound, and what he meant by "right rear" and it's NOT where you want it to be. So, what do you do? You ASSUME he has somehow been gotten to, and has taken to misrepresenting the location of the wound.

And you do this even though Hill continues to denounce the single-bullet theory, and has proven himself to be as defiant of the LN community as he is the CT community.

I mean, let's get real here. You THROW OUT all the statements that don't fit your conclusion, in order to reach your conclusion, and then say MY argument has a fatal flaw. Oy vey.

I stand by my words. I will throw out later polluted memories if they contradict earliest recollections. Perry is of course just one outstanding example. There is nothing vague about the wording occipitoparietal, except to you. It has to be vague to your thinking because there is nothing occipitoparietal in those bastard autopsy photos. Oy vey is right. Your thinking is fatally flawed if you cannot discern the difference between Perry et al. on Nov 22 and their thinking 25 years later. I conclude that Hill meant "right rear" in the same manner that the Parkland doctors meant "right rear." That is a very elementary deduction. If his later view of things contradicts the "right rear" observed by a good number of Parkland doctors, I conclude, rightly, that Hill has suffered memory pollution.

Nice switcheroo, Daniel. I have never disputed that some of the Parkland witnesses changed their minds about the wound location. I have never suggested that by "occipitoparietal" some of them meant "above the right ear."

But HIll is a different story. You have no evidence Hill ever thought the wound was in the occipitoparietal area. He said "right rear." He later demonstrated where he meant when he said "right rear." It wasn't where you wanted it to be. For some reason, however, you feel perfectly entitled to assume his memory is in error, and that Hill really thought the wound was where he now says it was not.

Now, some might call that denigrating a witness. Hill is still alive, of course, if you'd like the historical record to show that he changed his mind about the head wound location, you should contact him and point out that to you "right rear" means occipitoparietal, and then ask him if he originally thought the wound was in the occipitoparietal area, but has since changed his mind.

I wonder what he'll say.

P.S. You know, of course, that Dr. McClelland's earliest recollection was that the wound was in the left temple. And yet you embrace his later polluted memory over his earliest recollection. Hmmm...

Your butchering of McClelland's words to Dudman is beneath you. Tedious. And yes, Hill's observations cannot contradict the Parkland occipitoparietal witnesses. The body looked only one way. Wounds don't migrate (unless the chain of possession of the body is lost, then all bets are off). I don't have to call Hill but rely rather on consistent accounts of occipitoparietal wounding at Parkland. If Hill thought the wound was elsewhere, he was looking at a different body. Pat, your hermeneutical approach and mine seem to have little in common. I'll stand by mine.

What butchering? Do you know anything about McClelland? Really? Because McClelland said nothing about a wound on the left temple to Dudman. He wrote it in his ORIGINAL REPORT on 11/22. A few weeks later, he spoke to Dudman, and told Dudman the Secret Service had stopped by Parkland to tell the doctors the autopsy report had determined the throat wound to have been an exit, not an entrance. It follows from this that he was not afraid of "big brother." He also told Dudman, however, that he had seen nothing to indicate the fatal shot came from the front. Nothing.

Years later, moreover, he was interviewed by Weisberg, and made it clear to Weisberg he was a supporter of the WC and its conclusions.

In his more recent interviews and appearances, moreover, he has made it clear that he STILL thinks the wound itself fails to suggest a shot from the front, and admits that he only came to suspect the shot came from the front after studying the ZAPRUDER film.

Yes, that's right. Irony of ironies. McClelland--the man whose memory many CTs think proves the Zapruder film a fraud--only became a CT after studying the Zapruder film, and assuming it was legit.

[Karl Kinaski]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGNMBRq3Kxw

[Karl Kinaski]

Quote from a Jack Duffy automatically sent to my Face book account today:

Jack Duffy JFK Assassination Books,Reviews and Discussion

(Conspiracy of silence)
Another great book by Dr. Charles Crenshaw. I was honored to to be friends with Dr. Crenshaw. Both he and Dr. McClelland told me that a week after the assassination the FBI sent some agents to Parkland hospital. They got every Doctor and Nurse who had treated JFK in a room. According to both Doctors the FBI told all of them the case was solved and that Oswald was the only shooter. No conspiracy. They were all told that if they talked about the medical evidence or JFK's wounds that their medical careers would be ruined. They were all young surgeons who were scared to challenge the Govt. Dr. Crenshaw also said the back of JFK's head had a hole as big as a grapefruit or a fist. It was definitely an exit wound. JAMA tried to discredit Dr. Crenshaw by claiming he wasn't even in the trauma room. He sued them and won. They printed a retraction. Dr. Crenshaw knew my father who was a surgeon in Ft. Worth.