Zapruder's demonstration of JFK's head wound before his film had been developed

[John Butler]

On 6/10/2022 at 2:32 PM, Pat Speer said:

Yes, by all means, repeat the myth as often as possible. 

40 medical professionals on hand and close up enact a mythic event description.  Furthermore, they repeat these myths repeatedly.  Why?  That's simple.  It's the truth that can't be hidden.

[Chris Bristow]

CORRECTION: Nurse Bell was not in charge of the nurses in the E.R. Bell was the head surgical nurse.


When Dr Jones received the call that JFK was coming he immediately turned to Audrey Bell, The surgical nurse supervisor, and told her to get an operating room ready for a quick surgery. (volume 6 pg 51.)
  I have been reading about prepping a room for surgery and it varies depending on what part of the body they are operating on. I would think Nurse Bell would likely take a look at the wound before deciding how to set up the operating room.
 I would also think if she is the supervisor she would look to see which of  her nurses were assisting with JFK before leaving to attend to JC.
 I have heard attacks on her sanity and heard her called a xxxx in the past but I have not seen any real evidence other than conjecture.
 The most often repeated claims I see to explain away the consistency of the Parkland reports is they just made a mistake or they were too busy so they never got a good look, or they miss identified the wound location.
  The WC testimony lays out their inspection of the head wound and utterly refutes the notion that they did not get a good look at it or that they were too busy.
Dr Peters calls Dr Clark's attention to the head wound because it looked "Fatal". Dr's Clark and Jenkins then inspect the wound. Doctor Clark then notes JFK's condition. 'No neurological or muscular response' and Bashour gives a thumbs down on the EKG. Then Clark states to the WC "And the head wound was insurvivable". The WC report does quote him as saying "insurvivable", a typo I assume. Dr's Perry and Peters testified that he used the specific word 'mortal'. The very next words out of Clark's mouth were to instruct the other doctors to stop the resuscitation efforts. So yes they did get a good look at the wound.
 The sheer volume of witnesses who put the wound in the occipital parietal or occipital temporal rule out them all making the same mistake. When you compare the official wound location to the Parkland testimony there is only  a small variance as to location. There are outliers like Dulany and Theran Ward but even if you throw out  questionable witnesses the score is still overwhelmingly on the side of the CT. It is also interesting that most of the doctors described the same slightly protruding right eye and and the slightly deviated pupils. They were paying close attention to JFK.
 I know the argument is made that the staff really put the wound in 'back' of the head. you will find several who say 'back of the head'. but in the same sentence they put their hand on the occipital parietal. There are many cases when they say 'Back of the head" but then more specifically point to or say occipital parietal. Theran Ward wrote "Back of the head in his report. but when photographed he touches his fingertips to the right mastoid area. Nurse Bowron used the same term but then agreed with a drawing that put it in the occipital parietal.
The occipital parietal junction IS in the posterior(Rear) portion of the head. It is claimed the Parkland staff mostly all said it was all the way in the back and since JFK was laying on his back the far rear of the head would not have been visible to them. Therefore if they said it was in the 'back' they must all be wrong because they would not have been able to see it. This is a tortured theory that relies on reinterpreting the witnesses meanings of the wound location.
 Lets say the numbers were reversed and 19 staff supported the official story and only 4 supported the CT. Lets say as a CT person I tried to argue that we should take the word of those 4 doctors over the 19. I would be laughed out of the room for having a weak minded conspiracy brain. In what world would we accept 4 over 19? But in fact it is the skeptics that often accept the 4 over the 19 and don't even question it.
 I have seen multiple debates with skeptics over Parkland end the same way. They said "it does not matter anyway because the autopsy x-rays and photos trump the Parkland staff".
 It is interesting to note that if you get to the last point in the debate and they say "Well it does not matter anyway because.", it seems to be an admission that they did not prevail in the discussion up to that point.
 The final point is illogical though. The fundamental premise of the CT is that the overwhelming testimony from Parkland puts the official autopsy records in doubt. This issue has to be resolved before the autopsy records can be trusted. Problem is there has never been anything close to a satisfactory explanation for Parkland.
 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Chris Bristow

[Pat Speer]

On 6/11/2022 at 10:43 PM, Michael Crane said:

IIRC she was handed some fragments,but that might of been from Connally.

Then we have this.If she was asked where the entrance wound was,wouldn't you think that she would say "I didn't see it" instead,she drew an area like this?

 

Oh yeah,Crenshaw was there also doing a cutdown on one of the legs  😉

Yeah yeah we know what she said she saw. This has been written about for decades. But there's no reason to believe she was actually there. To give credit, this was first brought to my attention by David Lifton. Her presence in the room was not mentioned in any of the early reports, interviews or testimony. She worked at Parkland. She was handed the Connally wrist fragments. But there is no evidence she was in JFK's room or was shown his injuries by Perry. That is crap, pure and simple. My mom was an admitting nurse. My mom, brother, and sister spent almost their entire professional lives in hospitals. And I spent half of last year in a hospital. And there's a pecking order in hospitals, as in all workplaces. And Bell would not have been in the room while they were trying to save JFK's life. There were emergency room nurses to help the doctors. Bell was not an emergency room nurse. And no other nurses would have been welcome. 

And no, I don't think she was necessarily even lying. People's grasp on what actually happened versus what feels like it could have happened is weak, at best. It's kinda like that game we played in school, where we whispered something to someone and they whispered it to someone and so on, and by the time it got back to you it was grossly distorted. Well, that's what happens to memories, only the person doing the whispering is yourself. (Sometimes under the influence of a  book or pushy researcher...)

And no, I'm not just making this up. I spent approximately 3 months full time reading up on cognitive psychology and human memory. And I'm embarrassed, frankly, that so many of my fellow researchers prefer to just believe what and whom they want to believe as opposed to studying witness credibility, etc. or figuring out if what was said makes any sense.

[Pat Speer]

16 hours ago, John Butler said:

40 medical professionals on hand and close up enact a mythic event description.  Furthermore, they repeat these myths repeatedly.  Why?  That's simple.  It's the truth that can't be hidden.

The recollections of the Parkland witnesses were in fact quite erratic. And only a handful ever said they thought the autopsy photos had been faked. Most thought the head wound was further back than in the photos but higher up than on the so-called McClelland drawing. And this could have a number of innocent explanations.

People make such mistakes all the time. I write about this on my website. People who've looked at world maps numerous times nevertheless come away thinking the coasts of North and South America are in rough alignment, when South America is actually far to the east. Similarly, people tend to think their eyes are on the upper part of their head, length-wise, when they are in fact very near the middle.