Robert Prudhomme Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Posted on this forum before, but well worth sharing again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) Here's another excellent interview with Dr. McClelland (from 2009). The interviewer is Brent Holland of Canada.... Also See: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/robert-mcclelland.html Edited June 7, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 7, 2015 Author Share Posted June 7, 2015 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) First I've seen of any interview with Dr McLelland - Of the rear head wounds, i've only seen the sketch of it by one of the Drs that accompanies the other graphics of the autopsy stuff, and heard about the Drs agreeing to a "gaping hole" - His and Dr Crenshaw's graphic descriptions of the wound leave NO room for misinterpretation. As far as I know, and I'm no doctor, there's only one cerebellum in a human brain (even mine) and 9 times out of 10 it's in the back. nearer the top of the spine than the right ear. so correct me if i'm wrong, (Gary) but if someone can see a person's cerebellum through a hole in his skull, doesn't that pretty much mean that the hole would be positioned in proximity to the cerebellum...? am i missing something here? could the Kennedy genetic be such that their brain physiology is eons more advanced than a normal person's, in which the placement of some of the more important parts has evolved? Maybe John's cerebellum was closer to his right ear, thereby causing (according to some research) an uncontrollable propensity for adulterous behavior. Which would clear some other things up. somehow this doesn't work for me - I'm thinking JFK's cerebellum was where it should have been. Until some bastards moved it with a bullet or two. From the front. Edited June 7, 2015 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Here's another excellent interview with Dr. McClelland (from 2009). The interviewer is Brent Holland of Canada.... Also See: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/robert-mcclelland.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html good stuff. man gets long winded developing a foundation for an opinion, doesn't he. bless his heart, though, to be so clear at his age. good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) bless his heart, though, to be so clear at his age. good stuff. I agree with you there, Glenn. Dr. McClelland certainly doesn't sound like an old man in any of the interviews he's given during his "senior" years. He sounds very coherent and clear-thinking indeed. He gives an excellent interview every time. He pretty much went off the "logic" rails in 1988 for NOVA/PBS, however. What a bunch of malarkey this is.... THE ODD TALES OF THE PARKLAND DOCTORS ON PBS-TV IN 1988: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html Edited June 7, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 8, 2015 Author Share Posted June 8, 2015 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 David, when you suggest that Dr. McClelland pretty much went off the "logic" rails in 1988 for NOVA/PBS. It appears then that he was not the only one. All four doctors agreed with Robert McClellands position of the wound. Also, you appear to have ignored that whereas the Parkland doctors agreed to visit the archives, the Bethesda doctors refused to attend. Now I wonder why that was??? You go on to comment what a bunch of malarkey this is. Well actually it is not. This contradiction - between Parkland and Bethesda - is a difference that has yet to be reconciled. I watched one of your videos last night and from McClellands description of where he was standing - even though JFK was lying supine - I believe he would have been able to see any hole in the back of the head. My concern is not with Parkland and Bethesda it is with Parkland and Zapruder. The kind of damage these four doctors describe ought to be able to be seen in Zapruder. Zapruder appears to support Bethesda, yet I have great difficulty in believing four doctors - who all attended JFK in Trauma 1 - could all be wrong on a wound that is so dramatic. James. https://www.transferbigfiles.com/242b77b4-71b6-42b8-8777-ac3c2d9f7953/OOtrrAQIt6iQM1XEbn1ISw2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) Given the discrepancies between the Parkland examination and the Bethesda autopsy, it's interesting that in an interview between two doctors for a journal called Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery no attempt to differ between the Parkland head condition and the condition at Bethesda is made. Especially since the interviewing doctor veers McClelland off into general conspiracy chat. But no further particulars are explored, not even opinion on whether one shot or two wounded Connally, or any question on pressure put on Dr. Perry to be silent on the throat entrance wound. At least we get the mention of the throat wound being to the right side of the larynx, somewhat confirming reports of the larynx being bruised and pushed aside. McClelland discusses seeing the autopsy photos during HSCA in the second video, but seemingly has read none of the Bethesda reports, including Sibert and O,Neill's. Edited June 8, 2015 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 David, I also watched some of this video. I did not have time to watched all of it. Two points that stood out in my mind - in the part I did get to see - was:- a) part of the cerebellum fell on the floor. I am not sure there is verification of that. I certainly do not remember a reference to it. as you commented, the throat entry was right of centre. As I understand it, the entry was under the Adams Apple. McClelland's reference is at variance with that. The only advantage of that new position is the problems it creates for the SBT. That said, this new position for the throat wound creates more problems than it solves. I do not remember all the details, but I recollect that McClelland's description of his entry to Trauma 1 and the tracheotomy seemed somewhat confused. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) David, when you suggest that Dr. McClelland pretty much went off the "logic" rails in 1988 for NOVA/PBS. It appears then that he was not the only one. All four doctors agreed with Robert McClelland's position of the wound. Yes. Exactly, James. And I said that very thing in my "Odd Tales" article (excerpted below)..... "Each doctor said that the autopsy photos depicted the President's body in just exactly the way that each doctor remembers seeing Kennedy at Parkland. And yet the exact opposite is (of course) true -- i.e., before viewing the photos at the National Archives, each doctor pointed to the REAR of their heads for the PBS camera (which is where they all said the large exit wound was located on JFK's head--with Dulany actually pointing to the CENTER area of the back of his head, nearer the cowlick or the EOP area). Dr. Pepper Jenkins, however, does come close to placing the large head wound on the SIDE of JFK's head, instead of locating it at the far-right-rear of the head only. The four doctors then go into a room and view the photos and then they each come back out and claim, on camera, that the wounds in the pictures are exactly the same as what they said they saw at Parkland. That's just nuts. It cannot possibly be kosher. [...] After seeing the various photos which undeniably PROVE that they were each wrong about where they originally said the large wound on JFK's head was located, the doctors still could not bring themselves to say this to the NOVA camera --- "After looking at these photos, I must admit that I was mistaken when I said that the President's large head wound was located in the far-right-rear portion of his head. I must have been in error. And these photographs prove that I was in error." Instead, the four doctors said that the photos somehow CORROBORATED their original belief regarding JFK's head wounds. But we know the photos do not corroborate a single one of those doctors (although Dr. Jenkins came the closest to admitting he was wrong about the specific location of the exit wound). I guess the doctors at Parkland don't like to admit they made an innocent error, even though two of the doctors did admit in the 1988 NOVA program that they were in error when they had earlier said they had seen the "cerebellum" portion of JFK's brain." David Von Pein November 2008 May 2013 ------------- jfk-archives.blogspot.com/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988 Edited June 8, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Parkland v. Bethesda > what i see here are a group of absolutely innocent, accidental (situationally), well-trained ER doctors describing what they professionally observed versus a group of administration connected, untrained (in autopsy) doctors who knew well in advance that they were receiving the dead President illegally and under the pressure of observing FBI. gee, i dunno. who to believe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 David, when you suggest that Dr. McClelland pretty much went off the "logic" rails in 1988 for NOVA/PBS. It appears then that he was not the only one. All four doctors agreed with Robert McClellands position of the wound. Also, you appear to have ignored that whereas the Parkland doctors agreed to visit the archives, the Bethesda doctors refused to attend. Now I wonder why that was??? You go on to comment what a bunch of malarkey this is. Well actually it is not. This contradiction - between Parkland and Bethesda - is a difference that has yet to be reconciled. I watched one of your videos last night and from McClellands description of where he was standing - even though JFK was lying supine - I believe he would have been able to see any hole in the back of the head. My concern is not with Parkland and Bethesda it is with Parkland and Zapruder. The kind of damage these four doctors describe ought to be able to be seen in Zapruder. Zapruder appears to support Bethesda, yet I have great difficulty in believing four doctors - who all attended JFK in Trauma 1 - could all be wrong on a wound that is so dramatic. James. https://www.transferbigfiles.com/242b77b4-71b6-42b8-8777-ac3c2d9f7953/OOtrrAQIt6iQM1XEbn1ISw2 "My concern is ... with Parkland and Zapruder." Right, mine too. I'd started a thread about that last week, got a few nibbles - i was at that point not sure of what i was seeing in the film. I reached the personal conclusion, without having become firm in any altered film theory, that I'm much more comfortable believing the eyes, and words, of four MDs (and a number of other testimonies), as their words match, than that of the film. considering all involved, no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 David Von Pein said: "Instead, the four doctors said that the photos somehow CORROBORATED their original belief regarding JFK's head wounds. But we know the photos do not corroborate a single one of those doctors (although Dr. Jenkins came the closest to admitting he was wrong about the specific location of the exit wound)." David my understanding is that we do not have access to all 52 photos. You are correct that in the FOX set - which is in the public domain - that image set does not support the Parkland doctors. Assuming the Parkland doctors were telling the truth about what they saw on these pictures - and I have no reason to doubt their veracity - within the full set are images there are images with the scalp lying down the back on the head. There is also an image of a surgical incision on the head. We have no image that shows the scalp resting down the back of the head. DR McClelland says that is why you do not see the hole in the back of the head. Right or wrong, the point is we do not have access to that image. So to say that the Autopsy images do not corroborate the Parkland doctors is not correct. Some of the images do not support them - but we cannot say that all the images do not support them. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) We have no image that shows the scalp resting down the back of the head. DR McClelland says that is why you do not see the hole in the back of the head. Right or wrong, the point is we do not have access to that image. So to say that the Autopsy images do not corroborate the Parkland doctors is not correct. Some of the images do not support them - but we cannot say that all the images do not support them. James, We KNOW that McClelland's crazy "scalped pulled up over the wound in the BOH" theory is not accurate, because if it were accurate, then this X-ray would show a big hole in the back of the head---and it shows no such thing. This X-ray is the #1 pictorial item that proves there was no massive hole in the rear of JFK's head. There is NO MISSING BONE at the back of the head. And McClelland (and Company) insist that the BACK of Kennedy's head was blown out.... Edited June 9, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now