Dr. Robert McClelland Interview

[Glenn Nall]

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....

"...because if it were accurate, then this X-ray would show..."

poor logic. that doesn't follow at all. there are several reasons other than Mc's inaccuracy for this Xray not to show...

"This X-ray is the #1 pictorial item that proves there was no massive hole in the rear of JFK's head..."

again, who says? an xray can be falsified like any other image. or swapped. or... i'm not saying that it was, but you're claiming that this xray is a #1, as if it's widely accepted as authentic, indisputable, but that's just not the case. that's like saying, "cause EVERYBODY does it" - not true.

"There is NO MISSING BONE"

you can't prove a negative. it's more likely that 4 MDs are correct in their collective and agreeing memories than images supplied by people who are under the suspicion of deceit anyway. you're asking us to suspect conspiracy, but leave the Bethesda doctors out of it.

and yet you expect your credibility to maintain. i'mm not being offensive, personally, just making an observation. perhaps you should concentrate on improving your reasoning skills.

"And McClelland (and Company) insist that the BACK of Kennedy's head was blown out."

sounds to me like they've simply stuck to their story for 50 years. if you call that "insisting", well, so be it.

[David Von Pein]

Perhaps you should concentrate on improving your reasoning skills.

And by improving my "reasoning skills", you mean I should accept the notion that the JFK X-ray is nothing but a lie and a sham. Right, Glenn? Even though I also know what is written on page 41 of HSCA Volume 7?....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."

Thanks, Glenn. But no thanks. I'll stick with my current batch of reasoning skills. Lest I end up in the "Everything's Fake" arena.

Edited June 9, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Nall]

and maybe --- well, never mind.

i didn't say that. just said that the provisions you provided are not exclusive - that there are other options. you're putting yourself in a little black and white box, from which there is no escape without a little crow for dinner.

open your mind to a bigger picture than the one you've created - the fact is, there are more possibilities than the ONE you've committed to.

in this sense, we are a lot closer to the truth than you are.

[Glenn Nall]

Perhaps you should concentrate on improving your reasoning skills.

And by improving my "reasoning skills", you mean I should accept the notion that the JFK X-ray is nothing but a lie and a sham. Right, Glenn? Even though I also know what is written on page 41 of HSCA Volume 7?....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."

Thanks, Glenn. But no thanks. I'll stick with my current batch of reasoning skills. Lest I end up in the "Everything's Fake" arena.

you do that. and keep relying on HSCA while you're at it. that'll getcha far...

[David Von Pein]

And you, Glenn, keep relying on Doug Horne, David Lifton, David Mantik, and Mark Lane. They'll lead you to the promised land, no doubt.

Edited June 9, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Dave

How can we believe ANYTHING from the HSCA, when it is a proven fact they lied through their teeth about the interviews they conducted with 26 witnesses that were present at Bethesda?

[Glenn Nall]

*crickets*...

[Ray Mitcham]

Perhaps you should concentrate on improving your reasoning skills.

And by improving my "reasoning skills", you mean I should accept the notion that the JFK X-ray is nothing but a lie and a sham. Right, Glenn? Even though I also know what is written on page 41 of HSCA Volume 7?....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."

Thanks, Glenn. But no thanks. I'll stick with my current batch of reasoning skills. Lest I end up in the "Everything's Fake" arena.

Kay Spencer (developed photos of JFK autopsy)

Gunn: " Ms Spencer, what we would like to do, is start with the very first view, which corresponds to color Nos 29,30 and 31. Mrs Spencer, could you go to the light box and tell me whether you can identify the color transparency of view No 1 and image No 29 as having seen that before.

Mrs Spencer: No

Mr Gunn: In what respect is the image No 29 different from what you previously saw?

Mrs Spencer: Like I said there was none of the blood and matted hair.

Mr Gunn: Can you explain what you mean by that? Are you seeing blood and matted hair on image 29

Mrs Spencer: On the transparency.

Mr Gunn: But that was not present, the blood and matted hair was not present-

Mrs Spencer” I don’t remember.

Mr Gunn: -on the images you saw?

Mrs Spencer: No

…………………………..

Mr Gunn: Lets turn to the print. Can you identify the print as being the print that you printed yourself at N.P.C.?

Mrs Spencer: I don’t believe it is.

Mr Gunn: Can you look at the back - turn the light on, please, - can you look at the back of the print and identify whether that is the same type of paper as the Exhibit No 147, that you brought with you today?

Mrs Spencer: No It’s not.

……………………………….

Mr Gunn: Ms Spencer, have you had the opportunity now to look at the second view corresponding to colour Nos 26,27 qnd 28?

Mrs Spencer: Yes, I have.

Mr Gunn: Do those two images correspond to the photographs that you developed at NOPC in November 1963?

Mrs Spencer: No

Mr Gunn: In what way are they different?

Mrs Spencer: There was no- the film that I see in the prints that we printed did not have the massive head damages that is visible here.

Mr Gunn: Putting aside the question of the damage of the head, does the remainder of the body, the face, correspond to what you observed.

Mrs Spencer: No.

Mr Gunn: In what way is it different?

Mrs Spencer: The face in the photographs that we did, did not have the stress that these photos - on the face that these photos show.

Mr Gunn: Could you describe a little bit more what you mean by that?

Mrs Spencer: The face, the eyes were closed and the the face, the mouth was closed, and it was more of a rest position than these show.

……….

Mr Gunn: Could we next look at View No 3, identified as the superior view of the head corresponding to clor Nos 32,33,34,35,36 and 37. Mrs Spencer have you had an opportunity to look at the third view?

Mrs Spencer: Yes I have.

Mr Gunn: Do you think those two images, again when you are looking at a positive transparency and a print. Do those correspond to the photographs that you developed in November 1963.

Mrs Spencer: No

Mr Gunn: In what way are they different?

Mrs Spencer: Again, none of the heavy damage that shows in these photographs were[sic] visible in the photographs we did.

Mr Gunn: So, just to make sure that I am understanding correctly, previously, in your deposition, you described a wound, a small circular wound in the back of the head approximately two inches or so as I recall that you stated, whereas these show a much larger injury. Is that correct?

Mrs Spencer: That is correct.

……………..

Mr Gunn: In addition to what you have already said in describing the other photographs, is there any thing additional in these photographs that appears to be different?

Mrs Spencer: They are using a measuring device, which I don’t remember in any of the photographs that we produced, and I don’t remember any hands on the President during any of the shots that we reproduced.

Mr Gunn: Now could you look at the place on the back of tPresident Kennedy’s head that corresponds to where you identified a wound on the back of the head. Do you see that wound present in these photographs.

Mrs Spencer: No. I do not.

Mr Gunn: Would this view have shown the wound that you previously saw in the photographs of President Kennedy’s head?

Mrs Spencer: Yes, the wound I seen[sic] would have been approximately in this area.

Mr Gunn: If we describe that as roughly the cowlick area, would that be fair to say?

Mrs Spencer: Yes.

……………….

Mr Gunn: Mrs Spencer, could you look at the wound in the throat of President Kennedy and tell me whether that corresponds to the wound that you observed in the photographs that you developed?

Mrs Spencer: No, it does not.

Mr Gunn: In what way are they different?

Mrs Spencer: This a large gaping gash type.

Mr Gunn: That is, in the fifth view, it’s a large gaping gash, is that correct?

Mrs Spencer: Yes. in the one we had seen, it was on the right side, approximately half an inch.

Mr Gunn; Is the wound in a different location or is it just a larger wound on the throat?

Mrs Spencer: It could just be a larger wound.

………….

Mr Gunn: In terms of the locations of the wound, do you see any differences or similarities with those that you developed in November 1963?

Mrs Spencer: No, there is no similarity

Mr Gunn: Could we look now at the seventh view described a s a missile wound at the entrance and posterior skull following reflection of scalp corresponding to colour Nos 44 and 45. Mrs Spencer, in November 1063, did you see any of the images corresponding to the seventh view that you have in front of you now?

Mrs Spencer: No

Mr Gunn: Are you able to identify what that view is?

Mrs Spencer: It appears to be the opening of the cavity, top of the head, with the brain removed.

Mr Gunn: Could you look once again at the paper for the colour print and tell me whether that is the paper that you were using in 1963 at the NPC?

Mrs Spencer: No it is not.

…………………

Mr Gunn: Ms Spencer, you have now had an opportunity to view all the colored images both transparencies and prints, that are in the possession of the National Archives elated to the autopsy of President Kennedy. Based on your knowledge, are there any images of the autopsy of President Kennedy that are not included in those views that we saw?

Mrs Spencer: The views that we produced at the Photographic Center are not included.

Mr Gunn: Ms Spencer, how certain are you that there were other photographs of President Kennedy’s autopsy that are not included in the set that you have just seen.

Mrs Spencer:I could personally say that they are not included.

………snip

Mr Gunn: Are you able to- let’s start with a conjecture as to whether the photographs that you developed, and the photographs that you observed today, could have been taken at different times?

Mrs Spencer: I would definitely say they were taken at different times.

Mr Gunn: Is there any question in your mind whether the photographs that you saw today were photographs of President Kennedy?

Mrs Spencer: No. That was President Kennedy. but between those photographs and the ones that we did, there had to be some massive cosmetic things done to the President;s body.

[Glenn Nall]

terrific, Mr. Mitcham - i've been looking for stuff like this for my own information.

so what Mr. Von Pein is implying is that Horne is simply imagining that this interview took place? or maybe he made it up...?

ok. i can see the need to believe that...

[Robert Prudhomme]

Dave

How can we believe ANYTHING from the HSCA, when it is a proven fact they lied through their teeth about the interviews they conducted with 26 witnesses that were present at Bethesda?

bump

[Robert Prudhomme]

bump

[Ray Mitcham]

terrific, Mr. Mitcham - i've been looking for stuff like this for my own information.

so what Mr. Von Pein is implying is that Horne is simply imagining that this interview took place? or maybe he made it up...?

ok. i can see the need to believe that...

Thank you, Mr Nall,

This from White House photographer Robert L. Knudsen.

Mr. Knudsen testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which in the late 1970s reopened the official investigation into the killings of both President Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Mrs. Knudsen said he later told her that four or five of the pictures the committee showed him did not represent what he saw or photographed that night and that at least one of them had been altered.

"His son Bob said that his father told him that 'hair had been drawn in' on the photos to conceal a missing portion of the top-back of President Kennedy's head," according to a review board memo about a meeting with Mr. Knudsen's family.

Mr. Knudsen's observations were identical to those of another autopsy photographer, Floyd Riebe as well as Robert Groden who also reported the alteration of exactly the same photographs, in exactly the same location.

The House Assassinations Committee suppressed both Mr. Knudsen's testimony and Mr. Groden's report of the alteration.

As Bob, said, How can you believe anything the HSCA states?

[Steven Gaal]

An Autopsy under military control or Parkland Doctors ??? GOLLY of the two ,who would lie ?? GAAL

lots of good stuff link below

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/er-doctor-talks-about-jfks-wounds/

[Robert Prudhomme]

bump

[Jon G. Tidd]

DVP @ post #15:

The skull x-ray your present -- do you believe the U.S. Government has honestly represented the nature of JFK's wounds?

I suspect your answer is yes. I also suspect you are biased toward believing the U.S. Government in all matters. Which is fine.

I ask that you state your biases.

My only bias is that I'm a skeptic of accepted knowledge. A skeptic asks for, at the minimum, an argument that Proposition A is true. A logical argument begins with stated assumptions. What are your assumptions?