JFK: What The Doctors Saw validates there was no exit hole in the back of JFK's head.

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

I recently watched "JFK: What the Doctors Saw" and found the documentary to be a complex presentation of different opinions and interpretations about President Kennedy's assassination. The focal point of the documentary is the nature of the wound in the back of JFK's head, with varying interpretations from the Parkland Hospital doctors featured.

The doctors in the documentary discuss the possibility of the throat shot originating from the front, leading them to conclude that the hole in the back of Kennedy's head was an exit wound. They also describe an injury to the top right of JFK's head, visible when he was lying on his back with a flap of hair and scalp moved downward.

Additionally, the documentary delves into the analysis of autopsy photos, where the doctors speculate about an entry wound to the right temple area. This observation is presented as a potential explanation for the hole in the back of the head. It's important to note, however, that these doctors are not pathologists, which might affect the accuracy of their assessments.

Moreover, the Nix film, which was briefly mentioned in the documentary, appears to provide crucial evidence. This film seems to show that the shots came from the direction of the pergola in the grassy knoll area, hitting JFK from the right in the temporal region above the ear. This could suggest a tangential shot that exited through the top of the skull.

The documentary "JFK: What the Doctors Saw" presents a series of interpretations and theories about the assassination. The contrasting views among the doctors and the potential evidence from the Nix film contribute to the ongoing debate and mystery surrounding this historical event.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Keyvan Shahrdar

[Marcus Fuller]

We must have watched different programs with the same title and promo artwork. 

All the Doctors who were in the program said that the wound was at the back of the head consistent with an entry wound at the front/side which tore his scalp back. They were very specific. They also mentioned that the throat wound was an entrance wound. 

There had been a meeting with some of these Doctors some years ago where they discussed the case and it was shown apparently for the first time in this program.

[Steven Kossor]

You can't possibly have "cerebellar tissue extruding from the head wound" unless the wound is at the back and bottom of the skull.  Anyone who reported seeing cerebellar tissue extruding from JFK's head wound necessarily documented seeing a wound at the back and bottom of JFK's head (in addition to other wounds elsewhere that are not connected to the cerebellum).  You can't have blood & brain exhausting from JFK's head and striking officer Hargis and the rear driver's side tail light without an exit facing that direction when the material was exhausted; the bullet that struck JFK to create that exit wound could not travel in anything other than a straight line, just like the fluid ejected from the wound.  The shot had to come from the front/right (the GK).  A shot from the left/front (South Knoll) would have exhausted blood and brain matter onto the other officer riding to the rear of the passenger's side tail light.  Physics helps clarify precisely what must have happened when witness testimony (including motion pictures) is unreliable and/or confusing.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Steven Kossor said:

You can't possibly have "cerebellar tissue extruding from the head wound" unless the wound is at the back and bottom of the skull.  Anyone who reported seeing cerebellar tissue extruding from JFK's head wound necessarily documented seeing a wound at the back and bottom of JFK's head (in addition to other wounds elsewhere that are not connected to the cerebellum).  You can't have blood & brain exhausting from JFK's head and striking officer Hargis and the rear driver's side tail light without an exit facing that direction when the material was exhausted; the bullet that struck JFK to create that exit wound could not travel in anything other than a straight line, just like the fluid ejected from the wound.  The shot had to come from the front/right (the GK).  A shot from the left/front (South Knoll) would have exhausted blood and brain matter onto the other officer riding to the rear of the passenger's side tail light.  Physics helps clarify precisely what must have happened when witness testimony (including motion pictures) is unreliable and/or confusing.

It's a very complicated case, for a number of reasons. 

Among these is that most of the doctors initially claiming they saw cerebellar tissue backed away from their initial claims, with several admitting they were wrong, and another insisting he saw cerebellum but when looking down into the skull from the top, and not from behind. 

Another would be Hargis' claim he was hit by something. While some have taken this to mean he was hit by a gush of blood brain and skull from an explosion on the back of JFK's head, Hargis claimed from the first days that he saw the right side of JFK's head explode and a cloud of blood and brain go into the air, which he then drove through. In an effort to sell that this explosion of fluid shot out directly at Hargis, moreover, some researchers have insisted there was no explosion of matter elsewhere. Well, this would be news to Chaney, the the right of JFK, as well as the Connally's, in front of JFK, who all claimed they'd received a spritz of blood and brain as well. 

[Steven Kossor]

The driver’s side tail light was covered by a jacket at Parkland, not the passenger side tail light.  There was gore all over the trunk but the only part covered by a jacket in the Parkland ER lot was the driver’s side tail light area.  That’s a fact too, and should be accounted for.

[Steven Kossor]

Hargis also said he was struck by the gore with such force that he thought he, himself, had been hit.  Not compatible with “driving through” a mist.  Another fact to be accounted for.

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It's a very complicated case, for a number of reasons.

 

It is complicated only for those who disagree with the vast majority of the evidence.

The vast majority of the evidence indicates that the gaping hole was on the back of Kennedy's head. And therefore the back-of-head autopsy photos are fraudulent, as was the autopsy.

When the Parkland doctors discovered that the autopsy contradicted what they saw, some of them changed their positions to agree with the official WC story.

Pat Speer has been fooled by the WC cover up.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Let me make a side note to this.

Paramount Plus, which is showing this interesting documentary on the medical evidence, merged with Showtime over the summer.

So they are also showing JFK Revisited.

When is the last time that happened?

[Pat Speer]

49 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

It is complicated only for those who disagree with the vast majority of the evidence.

The vast majority of the evidence indicates that the gaping hole was on the back of Kennedy's head. And therefore the back-of-head autopsy photos are fraudulent, as was the autopsy.

When the Parkland doctors discovered that the autopsy contradicted what they saw, some of them changed their positions to agree with the official WC story.

Pat Speer has been fooled by the WC cover up.

 

We've been through this before, Sandy, and your argument is ridiculous. The WC cover up? Really? The doctors who told the WC the wound was on the back of the head changed their minds 30 years later because the "WC" got to them? 

I think you need to wash your mind of your pre-conceptions, and start over from scratch, as I did 20 years ago when I first dived into this stuff.

The fact is that there was a cover-up regarding the medical evidence performed by the WC, but it was a cover-up regarding the back wound, not head wound. The head wound remained a problem for years afterwards, so the Justice Department convened a secret panel to try to fix that. And fix it they did, by moving the entrance wound four inches higher on the head. This hoax revealed their desperation, moreover, as, by doing so, they essentially declared the autopsy doctors, whose recollections and reports form the bedrock of the medical evidence, were incompetent idiots, who couldn't tell the bottom of the skull from the top. 

This should be the focus of the research community, IMO, not endless blather about what an emergency room doctor said in a report written off the top of his head an hour after witnessing something, and how he could never ever honestly admit he was wrong after viewing some photos proving he was wrong.

Here's a test. Dr. McClelland's original report--the report designed to be his one and only contribution to the historical record--said the fatal wound was "of the left temple". Should we accept that as his ultimate statement? Or take into account his subsequent "corrections" to that account? And if the latter, how is that not inconsistent with yours and Gary's and so many other people's claim we can throw out the latter-day statements...corrections...of Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, and Baxter? 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

We've been through this before, Sandy, and your argument is ridiculous. The WC cover up? Really? The doctors who told the WC the wound was on the back of the head changed their minds 30 years later because the "WC" got to them?

 

As is typical for you, you are misrepresenting what someone on the other side of the issue has stated.

I didn't say that the WC "got to them" (that is, to the Parkland doctors who said the gaping wound was on the back of the head). I said that a few of the Parkland doctors switched positions when they learned that the official WC narrative was that the wound was on the top of the head, not the back. I've never said or implied that the WC, or anybody else, actively did something decades later to change the doctors' minds.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I think you need to wash your mind of your pre-conceptions, and start over from scratch, as I did 20 years ago when I first dived into this stuff.

 

I have zero preconceptions.

You, in contrast, have two preconceptions that I can see that are clouding your thinking on this matter. One is that you don't accept, or have a very difficult time accepting, that the government coverup included forgeries in the photographic record. The other is that you have a strong desire NOT to suspect something was forged if doing so is unnecessary in proving that Oswald wasn't the lone nut killer the WC said he was.

 

[Bill Brown]

On 11/15/2023 at 2:48 PM, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

I recently watched "JFK: What the Doctors Saw" and found the documentary to be a complex presentation of different opinions and interpretations about President Kennedy's assassination. The focal point of the documentary is the nature of the wound in the back of JFK's head, with varying interpretations from the Parkland Hospital doctors featured.

The doctors in the documentary discuss the possibility of the throat shot originating from the front, leading them to conclude that the hole in the back of Kennedy's head was an exit wound. They also describe an injury to the top right of JFK's head, visible when he was lying on his back with a flap of hair and scalp moved downward.

Additionally, the documentary delves into the analysis of autopsy photos, where the doctors speculate about an entry wound to the right temple area. This observation is presented as a potential explanation for the hole in the back of the head. It's important to note, however, that these doctors are not pathologists, which might affect the accuracy of their assessments.

Moreover, the Nix film, which was briefly mentioned in the documentary, appears to provide crucial evidence. This film seems to show that the shots came from the direction of the pergola in the grassy knoll area, hitting JFK from the right in the temporal region above the ear. This could suggest a tangential shot that exited through the top of the skull.

The documentary "JFK: What the Doctors Saw" presents a series of interpretations and theories about the assassination. The contrasting views among the doctors and the potential evidence from the Nix film contribute to the ongoing debate and mystery surrounding this historical event.

 

"Moreover, the Nix film, which was briefly mentioned in the documentary, appears to provide crucial evidence. This film seems to show that the shots came from the direction of the pergola in the grassy knoll area, hitting JFK from the right in the temporal region above the ear."

 

Nonsense.

 

Unless you care to take a moment to explain how so.

 

[Micah Mileto]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Here's a test. Dr. McClelland's original report--the report designed to be his one and only contribution to the historical record--said the fatal wound was "of the left temple". Should we accept that as his ultimate statement? Or take into account his subsequent "corrections" to that account? And if the latter, how is that not inconsistent with yours and Gary's and so many other people's claim we can throw out the latter-day statements...corrections...of Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, and Baxter? 

What's Lito Porto, chopped liver?

[Pat Speer]

36 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

As is typical for you, you are misrepresenting what someone on the other side of the issue has stated.

I didn't say that the WC "got to them" (that is, to the Parkland doctors who said the gaping wound was on the back of the head). I said that a few of the Parkland doctors switched positions when they learned that the official WC narrative was that the wound was on the top of the head, not the back. I've never said or implied that the WC, or anybody else, actively did something decades later to change the doctors' minds.

 

 

I have zero preconceptions.

You, in contrast, have two preconceptions that I can see that are clouding your thinking on this matter. One is that you don't accept, or have a very difficult time accepting, that the government coverup included forgeries in the photographic record. The other is that you have a strong desire NOT to suspect something was forged if doing so is unnecessary in proving that Oswald wasn't the lone nut killer the WC said he was.

 

But what you're writing still isn't true. The doctors didn't change their minds when they learned what the official narrative was, they changed their minds after viewing the autopsy photos for themselves and concluding it was Kennedy in the photos and that they must have been mistaken. At that point, some were befriended by Lattimer, a respected doctor, who presumably influenced them and led them to be more set in their belief nothing was fishy. While that's admittedly a problem, the CT community is rarely as hypocritical as they are on this issue, as their championing of men like Crenshaw and McClelland--whose statements were clearly influenced by the CT community--fails to acknowledge that these men were playing to their audience, much as the doctors saying they must have been mistaken were playing to their audience. OF COURSE doctors can be mistaken. They are mistaken all the time. And OF COURSE doctors can be influenced over time by others. That is only natural. So relying on the decades-after recollections of men who have been badgered and pushed into supporting one point or another is folly, as there is no way to establish truth beyond cherry-picking.

Which is why I think people should focus on points on which there is no disagreement, even today. One such point is that the large head wound was a large defect of both scalp and bone. This marks it as an entrance, according to the textbooks written by the very men proclaiming it to have been an exit. (This was one of my discoveries so you can bet your butt someone will come along soon claiming they discovered this.) Another such data point is the throat wound.

To be clear, I don't believe ANY of the doctors seeing Kennedy's throat wound, and believing it to have been an entrance, EVER said they'd been mistaken, and that it really did look like an exit. They said from the beginning and till the end that it appeared to be an entrance. There are circumstances, of course, where what appears to be an entrance can be an exit. (McClelland nailed it when he said the exit of a low-velocity projectile can look like an entrance.) And this should have been followed up on by Specter, as the tests performed by Olivier for the WC suggested JFK and JBC had been struck by low-velocity projectiles. So the small size of this wound remains a mystery which, when accepted, destroys the single-bullet theory, and thus the single-assassin solution. 

So the research community--instead of blathering on for close to 30 years that "well the doctors said this but then said that so they must have been scared and lying" should have moved on and focused on the missing scalp of the head wound, and the small size of the throat wound, as these are better and much more solid evidence for conspiracy than the initial impressions of the head wound location--which the primary doctors later said was a mistake. That the research community is stuck in this rut is a shame, IMO. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

15 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

What's Lito Porto, chopped liver?

What??? Where is Porto's 11-22-63 report? Or WC testimony? Or even HSCA testimony? 

Are you really pushing that the best evidence for solving a mystery is not the evidence from the first witnesses, or the evidence from the best witnesses, but from someone who only emerged decades later, whose statements would inevitably have been influenced by the mountains of material dumped on the public's consciousness for the past 60 years? 

[David Von Pein]

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

they changed their minds after viewing the autopsy photos for themselves and concluding it was Kennedy in the photos and that they must have been mistaken.

To use one of Pat's favorite expressions here ---- Yikes!

You must be joking with that last post of yours, Pat. Because the doctors in the 1988 NOVA/PBS program most certainly did not say they had been "mistaken" when it comes to the location of the large wound they observed in JFK's head.

None of them said to the camera something like this:

I was mistaken. The large wound was, indeed, to the RIGHT-FRONT of the President's head, just as the autopsy photos show. Therefore, I must have been mistaken.

But instead of saying something like the above, the Parkland doctors said things like this:

"I don't see evidence of any alteration of his wound in these pictures from what I saw in the emergency room."

and....

"Nothing that I've seen would make me think it had been changed from what happened that day."

and....

"Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time."

and....

"I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly."

Crazy!

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/The Odd Tales Of The Parkland Doctors

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by David Von Pein