Parkland's Dr. Paul Peters to Gerald Posner: Dr. Robert McClelland WASN'T in the best position to see the head wound because he was on the OTHER SIDE of the table?

[Chris Bristow]

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So we can agree then that the so-called McClelland drawing is not remotely accurate and that those claiming it is have been grossly deceptive. 

No we don't agree. To say it is not 'remotely' accurate is far from accurate. They made the bone too thick and with the hair the wound appears very large, but the size of opening is about right.  As to the location there is only about 1 1/2 inches difference between where he usually places his hand. Mcclellend has demonstrated the wound locations many times and we know where he puts it based on the photographic evidence. The small difference in location does not erase all that photographic evidence. Compare that to the official wound and there is no denying he saw a wound in the O.C. the skeptics often say the photographic evidence trumps the oral testimony and in this case it certainly does.
    I have seen videos when doctors have to search for the right location when placing their hand behind their head. Jones once put his hand low and then moved his fingers up a bit, then felt around and moved it again. We have no visual map of the back of the head and many staff have been seen feeling around for the location they want to show. Small differences are no big deal and we should expect that. But when contrasted against the official parietal wound there is no contest.
   We can always find some contradiction from them over the years but the fact that so many used the term occipital parietal or right posterior makes their recollection extremely unlikely to be mistakes.

[Chris Bristow]

4 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

I know this has been pointed out to you before - but McClelland said the autopsy photographs were only consistent with his memory on the condition that the hand in the photo is holding a piece of scalp over a hole in the back of the head.

Thanks for posting that. Mcclellend never capitulated at the archives. And I just watched that again and McClellend said something I missed  "The doctor has taken this loose piece of scalp WHICH IS HANGING BACK IN MOST OF THE PICTURES EXPOSING THIS LARGE WOUND"(He draws a circle at the occipital parietal). So did he see photos showing the O.C. wound? He continues saying "Naturally the scalp appears to be in it's normal state".

[Micah Mileto]

7 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

Thanks for posting that. Mcclellend never capitulated at the archives. And I just watched that again and McClellend said something I missed  "The doctor has taken this loose piece of scalp WHICH IS HANGING BACK IN MOST OF THE PICTURES EXPOSING THIS LARGE WOUND"(He draws a circle at the occipital parietal). So did he see photos showing the O.C. wound? He continues saying "Naturally the scalp appears to be in it's normal state".

Fake photos being shown to the doctors at the National Archives in 1988? McClelland did say he thought it was strange that the room with the photos was occupied by a guard holding a rifle.

[Chris Bristow]

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

You're oh so correct about this point, Pat.

And even Dr. McClelland himself, during his 1988 NOVA/PBS television appearance, has totally contradicted his ridiculous "Huge Hole In The Back Of The Head" sketch.

In a 2012 discussion, I imparted this....

"Here's another way to try and get my point across about the absurdity of Dr. McClelland's stance on this subject of JFK's head wounds:

At some point after the assassination, someone created a drawing that depicted the large exit wound in JFK's head according to the way Dr. McClelland said the wound looked to him. This is that drawing:



Now, given the fact that Robert McClelland generally agrees with the information depicted in the above drawing, let me ask this:

How can that drawing be accurate when even Dr. McClelland agrees that the right-rear scalp of President Kennedy remained completely undamaged and unfazed by the assassin's bullet?

In other words, how can the two things depicted in the composite photo below possibly co-exist on the very same head at the end of the day on November 22, 1963?



I firmly believe that those two things shown in the above composite picture cannot co-exist on JFK's head...and, therefore, Dr. Robert N. McClelland was mistaken about the location of the large hole in the President's skull."

David Von Pein
January 26, 2012

 

I find it amazing that skeptics like yourself can appear so ignorant about subjects like McClellend in the Nova doc. As Micah pointed out to you and as MOST EVERY seasoned JFK researcher knows full well, McClellend  did not capitulate. Cherry picking to the point of a complete misrepresentation of Mcclellend at the archives  is easily disproved but it is repeated year after year. A strong argument for the Parkland O.C. issue is the weak and completely false arguments put forth by skeptics.

[Chris Bristow]

Does anyone know if it was Floyd Riebe who took the back of the head photo? I know he said it was fake but was he credited with taking it in the official report?

[Chris Bristow]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, McClelland was easily manipulated into telling people what they wanted to hear. But do either of these drawings reflect what the Parkland witnesses by and large recalled? NO!!! Most of the witnesses on the slide below are pointing out a location entirely above the top of the ear, not directly behind the ear. The only two witnesses who support the accuracy of these drawings, moreover, are Crenshaw and Bell, neither of whom spoke on the matter for decades after the shooting, and neither of whom placed the wound in a consistent location when asked to place it on drawings showing the rear and side of the skull. 

And yes, I know, we've been through this before, and I thought you'd agreed that the wound as widely recalled was high up on the back of the head, and not where it is placed in the McClelland drawings. So what's changed? Is it that you can not acknowledge that there has been widespread deception on the part of CTs, much as there has been widespread deception on the part of LNs? 

A far cry from the official location . Yes above and behind in the right posterior. Their positions support the occipital parietal testimony. Only Dulany and Ward are pointing to questionable locations. This does not support your case it supports the Ct.

Edited September 5, 2022 by Chris Bristow

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

Does anyone know if it was Floyd Riebe who took the back of the head photo? I know he said it was fake but was he credited with taking it in the official report?

No. Riebe's photos were long shots and were confiscated, and never printed. They were developed by the ARRB. Dr. Randy Robertson petitioned the archives to view them, and was successful, He said they were completely consistent with the other photos. He saw them as yet another reason to believe the autopsy photos are legit. 

Edited September 5, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

A far cry from the official location . Yes above and behind in the right posterior. Their positions support the occipital parietal testimony. Only Dulany and Ward are pointing to questionable locations. This does not support your case it supports the Ct.

So... How many of the supposed back of the head witnesses place the wound at the level of the ear, where it is shown in the McClelland drawing, and where it would have to have been to expose the cerebellum from behind? (Keep in mind that Groden took snippets of videos of two of the Bethesda witnesses describing the right side of the skull missing after the scalp was peeled back, and made it look like they were describing.a blow-out on the back of the head apparent at the beginning of the autopsy.)I believe the answer is two": Crenshaw and Bell--neither of whom said anything before decades had passed, and both of whom were inconsistent in their depictions on anatomy drawings. 

Now, some prominent CTs, perhaps even most of them, have played word games for decades--deliberately interpreting "back of the head" to mean the far back of the head. They desperately want to believe everything adds up and the back of the head was blasted out. Only...the very witnesses they claim as support for this have pulled the rug out from them by routinely pointing to a location above the ear...above the occipital bone...above the cerebellum. The location they point to, on average, is roughly halfway between where so many want the wound to be and where it is shown on the autopsy photos. Now, a non-zealot would say "Well, if there are photos showing one thing, and people recall something slightly different, then the photos are probably accurate." But that doesn't happen in this case. Instead, people say "Well, the photos show one thing, and people recall something slightly different, so they must really mean they saw something that was depicted in a drawing 50 years ago, that someone told me was accurate." (I witnessed this myself at one point. I was in a group discussion with James Jenkins in which he was asked and asked repeatedly if there was a blow-out wound on the far back of JFK's head, and he answered over and over that there was no such wound--that the skull was shattered on the far back--as is shown on the x-rays--but that the scalp over this shattered bone was intact. Well, within days one of those in attendance reported back to someone that Jenkins had said the autopsy photos didn't quite match what he recalled, and this person then wrote a widely disseminated online article claiming that Jenkins had disavowed the autopsy photos--and that this was because the back of the head was blown-out...EXACTLY WHAT JENKINS SAID HAD NOT HAPPENED.)

And this sleight of hand--this twisting of what the witnesses said to fit the largely unsupported argument the back of the head was blown out--is nothing new. For example, Groden and Livingstone claimed (and Groden continues to claim) that the Parkland witnesses supported the accuracy of the McClelland drawing, when this is simply not true. When shown the autopsy photos and McClelland drawing by the Boston Globe 40 years or so ago, a number of Parkland witnesses said they didn't believe the photos accurately depicted what they recalled...but an even greater number said the McClelland drawing did not accurately depict what they recalled. 

So let's throw that drawing in the trash, okay? It's garbage. And McClelland himself knew it to be as much when he was interviewed for The Men Who Killed Kennedy, and showed them where he (at that time) recalled seeing a wound. 

Edited September 5, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I thought you'd agreed that the wound as widely recalled was high up on the back of the head, and not where it is placed in the McClelland drawings.

 

 

I counted them and here is what I see:

3 - High
6 - Middle
5 - Low

4 - ALL  (Large wound.)

 

Only three are high. Any others that appear high are also middle and low due to the person indicating a large wound that covers most of the head vertically.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

46 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I was in a group discussion with James Jenkins in which he was asked and asked repeatedly if there was a blow-out wound on the far back of JFK's head, and he answered over and over that there was no such wound--that the skull was shattered on the far back--as is shown on the x-rays--but that the scalp over this shattered bone was intact.

 

Here is what Jenkins said shortly after he witnessed the wounds:

In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, "Part of the brain was herniated. I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..." (WC--V6:48)

 

After seeing the (faked) autopsy photos, Jenkins changed his mind. He told Gerald Posner:

"The description of the cerebellum was my fault," .... "When I read my report over I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital." (Gerald Posner, Case Closed", p. 312)

 

Never mind that Jenkins had used the word "occipital" in both his 11-22-63 note and to attorney Purdy for the HSCA.

 

[Chris Bristow]

55 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So... How many of the supposed back of the head witnesses place the wound at the level of the ear, where it is shown in the McClelland drawing, and where it would have to have been to expose the cerebellum from behind? (Keep in mind that Groden took snippets of videos of two of the Bethesda witnesses describing the right side of the skull missing after the scalp was peeled back, and made it look like they were describing.a blow-out on the back of the head apparent at the beginning of the autopsy.)I believe the answer is two": Crenshaw and Bell--neither of whom said anything before decades had passed, and both of whom were inconsistent in their depictions on anatomy drawings. 

Now, some prominent CTs, perhaps even most of them, have played word games for decades--deliberately interpreting "back of the head" to mean the far back of the head. They desperately want to believe everything adds up and the back of the head was blasted out. Only...the very witnesses they claim as support for this have pulled the rug out from them by routinely pointing to a location above the ear...above the occipital bone...above the cerebellum. The location they point to, on average, is roughly halfway between where so many want the wound to be and where it is shown on the autopsy photos. Now, a non-zealot would say "Well, if there are photos showing one thing, and people recall something slightly different, then the photos are probably accurate." But that doesn't happen in this case. Instead, people say "Well, the photos show one thing, and people recall something slightly different, so they must really mean they saw something that was depicted in a drawing 50 years ago, that someone told me was accurate." (I witnessed this myself at one point. I was in a group discussion with James Jenkins in which he was asked and asked repeatedly if there was a blow-out wound on the far back of JFK's head, and he answered over and over that there was no such wound--that the skull was shattered on the far back--as is shown on the x-rays--but that the scalp over this shattered bone was intact. Well, within days one of those in attendance reported back to someone that Jenkins had said the autopsy photos didn't quite match what he recalled, and this person then wrote a widely disseminated online article claiming that Jenkins had disavowed the autopsy photos--and that this was because the back of the head was blown-out...EXACTLY WHAT JENKINS SAID HAD NOT HAPPENED.)

And this sleight of hand--this twisting of what the witnesses said to fit the largely unsupported argument the back of the head was blown out--is nothing new. For example, Groden and Livingstone claimed (and Groden continues to claim) that the Parkland witnesses supported the accuracy of the McClelland drawing, when this is simply not true. When shown the autopsy photos and McClelland drawing by the Boston Globe 40 years or so ago, a number of Parkland witnesses said they didn't believe the photos accurately depicted what they recalled...but an even greater number said the McClelland drawing did not accurately depict what they recalled. 

So let's throw that drawing in the trash, okay? It's garbage. And McClelland himself knew it to be as much when he was interviewed for The Men Who Killed Kennedy, and showed them where he (at that time) recalled seeing a wound. 

"Now, some prominent CTs, perhaps even most of them, have played word games for decades--deliberately interpreting "back of the head" to mean the far back of the head"
What?? Almost everyone says the right rear not the far back of the head.
"the very witnesses they claim as support for this have pulled the rug out from them by routinely pointing to a location above the ear...above the occipital bone."
  Putting my hand in the same position as you show McClellend's my index and middle finger extend into the occipital bone. To say they are above the occipital is plain wrong. Look at his whole hand. His thumb is so low it absolutely is not above the occipital. The index finger is also low. You are trying to split hairs based on small differences. We should expect them to vary and some do place it lower. When you contrast their opinions with the official location the difference is glaring and can't be explained by doctors just making the same mistake.
 no one has ever provided a credible explanation for why so many said right occipital parietal or right posterior. It is the large majority and it is far too many to be explained away as 'doctors make mistakes', far too many!
 
 

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Here is what Jenkins said shortly after he witnessed the wounds:

In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, "Part of the brain was herniated. I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..." (WC--V6:48)

 

After seeing the (faked) autopsy photos, Jenkins changed his mind. He told Gerald Posner:

"The description of the cerebellum was my fault," .... "When I read my report over I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital." (Gerald Posner, Case Closed", p. 312)

 

Never mind that Jenkins had used the word "occipital" in both his 11-22-63 note and to attorney Purdy for the HSCA.

 

Wrong Jenkins. But this Jenkins reversed himself and said he was mistaken about seeing cerebellum. Macerated brain resembles cerebellum. He and I believe Carrico both came to say they were mistaken about seeing cerebellum. 

[Pat Speer]

On 9/5/2022 at 5:37 PM, Chris Bristow said:

"Now, some prominent CTs, perhaps even most of them, have played word games for decades--deliberately interpreting "back of the head" to mean the far back of the head"
What?? Almost everyone says the right rear not the far back of the head.
"the very witnesses they claim as support for this have pulled the rug out from them by routinely pointing to a location above the ear...above the occipital bone."
  Putting my hand in the same position as you show McClellend's my index and middle finger extend into the occipital bone. To say they are above the occipital is plain wrong. Look at his whole hand. His thumb is so low it absolutely is not above the occipital. The index finger is also low. You are trying to split hairs based on small differences. We should expect them to vary and some do place it lower. When you contrast their opinions with the official location the difference is glaring and can't be explained by doctors just making the same mistake.
 no one has ever provided a credible explanation for why so many said right occipital parietal or right posterior. It is the large majority and it is far too many to be explained away as 'doctors make mistakes', far too many!
 
 

The wound shown in the autopsy photos is on the right posterior part of the head, depending on how you define it. Hill and others have made it clear that the "back of the head" to them starts above the ear. And that's where the wound is shown in the photos. 

Many CTs, however, have long claimed that the witnesses claiming it was on the back of the head were claiming it was in the middle of the back of the head at the level of the ears. Some even claim it was directly between the ears. That way they can match the recollections of these witnesses with the claim the Harper fragment is occipital bone, and that the doctors thinking they saw cerebellum were correct in their assessment. 

I, on the other hand, have royally pissed people off by pointing out that you can't have it both ways. You can't say the witnesses saying it was right rear and pointing out a location above the ear are consistent with the Harper fragment's being occipital bone and the cerebellum being blasted and exposed. It's like saying someone pointing at the Sphinx was pointing at the pyramids. It might seem true from a distance but the closer you get the clearer it becomes...that they're blowing smoke. 

 

Edited February 22 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

7 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

As Micah pointed out to you and as MOST EVERY seasoned JFK researcher knows full well, McClellend did not capitulate.

And I never said McClelland capitulated. In fact, that was kind of my whole point---the fact that he didn't reverse his opinion regarding the location of JFK's head wound even after seeing this autopsy photo at the National Archives:

And then, after seeing the above photo at the Archives, McClelland comes up with his "Scalp Pulled Up Over The Wound" theory, which is completely ridiculous and impossible given the wholly undamaged condition of JFK's scalp in the photo above.

Dr. McClelland was, of course, trying his best to have it both ways concerning President Kennedy's head wound. But when logic and common sense enter the equation, it's quite clear that having it both ways is just not possible in this instance.

 

7 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Cherry picking to the point of a complete misrepresentation of Mcclellend at the archives is easily disproved but it is repeated year after year.

Please inform me as to how and where I have engaged in "a complete misrepresentation of McClelland". I look forward to seeing that.

I think you must be referring to other Lone Assassin believers who have stated in the past that McClelland completely reversed his position regarding JFK's head wounds in the 1988 NOVA special [see link below]. Because I have never said any such thing about Dr. Robert N. McClelland.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Odd Tales Of The Parkland Doctors On PBS-TV In 1988

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Joseph McBride]

All this going over old ground that has been

covered in numerous books (etc.) is an apparent

goal of some disinformation operatives who frequent

this forum (and have been doing so

with more regularity lately) to waste time and distract attention

from genuine research. Most members here are

interested in doing genuine research that attempts

to advance the case, but not these other posters who

have infested the site.

Edited September 6, 2022 by Joseph McBride