A small detail in the Nova doc from the National Archives.

[Chris Bristow]

Below is a clip from the Nova doc that I am linking from Vince Palamara's YouTube Channel. I have watched it multiple times but always missed something. At 3:00 minutes Cronkite refers to the well known drawing that McClellend approved. Cronkite points out that the doctors and Nova saw photos of wounds that support the McClellend drawing showing the large wound in the O.C that is consistent with the location and size of the McClellend drawing.. He contrasts the drawing against the autopsy photo that shows only a small entry wound in the rear and says  "Dr McClellend speculates". McClellend then speculates that they have pulled the scalp up over the wound he saw that day.
  What I missed is that Cronkite clearly says the Nova staff and the doctors looked at autopsy photos that conform to the McClellend drawing!! Has anyone seen autopsy photos that correspond to the wound being in the O.C? No, of course not. What the hell is he talking about?
 

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Chris Bristow

[Micah Mileto]

In such a delicate study, just summarizing what a witness said isn't enough.

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

In such a delicate study, just summarizing what a witness said isn't enough.

Yes, each witness has multiple statements over many years. They all have to be taken into account and weighed together. That can result in an ambiguity about their exact opinion. When you have 20+ witnesses it results in further ambiguity when evaluating the subject as a whole. That is why I think it helps to toss out many of the witnesses. But the numbers you are left with still very strongly indicates  the wound as being in the O.C.
   But I also think that before any scrutiny we have 20 or more and that in itself is a strong argument for the O.C. It is often said those doctors did not see many gunshot wounds(At least not many rifle wounds), or that they often get wound location wrong, or they were too busy trying to save his life to notice that big hole in his head(Humor intended.) But the sheer numbers make those explanations untenable. I think it Was Vincent Bugliosi who floated the last one, but the 20+ makes that excuse look like nothing but propaganda. He was a lawyer defending the WC against the sworn testimony from Parkland. He had to have read that part of the WC report. 
      I was thinking recently about the letter Dr Jenkins wrote on the day of the assassination when he described the wound as a laceration both temporal and occipital. 
 Consider that we have one doctor trying to give another doctor a visual idea of the wound. And also   consider that the temporal bone attaches to the occipital. Now I know the temporal bone also extends up into the temple area and doctors do refer to that area by talking about the temporal bones(Plural). But what picture would the doctor receiving the letter conclude, when the doctor writing the letter says "Temporal and occipital" without any mention of the parietal? Would he picture the official wound location, or would he picture a wound behind the ear and low where the temporal attaches to the occipital? It is hard to see one doctor describing the wound to another doctor and expecting them to assume the wound was not behind the ear.
 I know a lot is made of Baxter, McClellend, Jones and Perry saying in their ARRB deposition that they were never coerced. But someone like McClellend knowing what he saw, and then the official story completely contradicting him, he must have seen the writing on the wall. He must conclude there is a coverup and it would be done by very powerful people. Most intelligent people would know the jeopardy of speaking out against the official record. Not to mention Hosty was counseling them on what to say. No coercion would be needed to shut them up in the early days.
   Perry told the WC the wound was parietal occipital. But he was called back he was shown the autopsy results and asked if he agreed with it. He said yes and that was it. No follow up questions about why he changed his story. You have to wonder why he flipped 180 degrees. Maybe he too saw the writing on the wall.

[Micah Mileto]

1 minute ago, Chris Bristow said:

 

The autopsy protocol statated that the large head wound involved the temporal and occipital as well as frontal areas. The x-rays only show fractures in that area. It wasn't until 1966-1967 that the world fully realized the descrepancy of the wound location.

[Chris Bristow]

1 minute ago, Micah Mileto said:

The autopsy protocol statated that the large head wound involved the temporal and occipital as well as frontal areas. The x-rays only show fractures in that area. It wasn't until 1966-1967 that the world fully realized the descrepancy of the wound location.

I thought they said it extended toward the occipital as opposed to including the occipital bone, but I could be wrong. The photos are the big lie, and show the autopsy as fake, all imo. But doctors do sometimes refer to the posterior as the occipital area, so I give it some leeway.