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

[Pat Speer]

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

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."

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

 

Yikes. Doctors don't normally come out and say they were mistaken. By saying the photos (which do not show an occipital blow-out oozing cerebellum) were consistent with what they recalled, they were effectively saying they'd been mistaken. I've seen subsequent interviews where Carrico did use those words, and where Perry attempted to distance himself from the claim he saw cerebellum. So there is no way one can read the words of men like Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, and Baxter from the 80's on up and not come away believing they'd admitted they were mistaken. 

I guess I don't understand your point. Do you think NOVA took their words out of context, and that they came away from viewing the photos still believing there was an occipital wound oozing cerebellum? Or do you think NOVA should have forced them to use the word "mistaken" so no one could come away believing they still stood by their initial reports? Because, to be honest, I don't know anyone on the CT side citing their claim there was no discrepancy as evidence the photos were altered after the program or some such thing... 

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

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.

 

What I said IS true. I said that the WC narrative changed some of the doctors' minds. The autopsy report and photos are a part of the WC narrative.

 

11 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

OF COURSE doctors can be mistaken. They are mistaken all the time.

 

Yes, doctors can be mistaken. But when virtually all of them say the same thing, on something as simple as the location of a large wound, the only way they could all be mistaken is through mass hallucination. Which is something most intelligent people reject as being possible.

 

11 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

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.

 

You're the one who chooses to accept, via cherry picking, the doctors who later changed their minds. I don't do that. I accept only the early statements, and I consider what they all said, not just a cherry-picked few.

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Yikes. Doctors don't normally come out and say they were mistaken.

Yikes (again)!!

You, Pat, actually said what you just said above even though you know that two of the doctors in '88 did admit they were "mistaken" (or in "error") with respect to seeing the cerebellum.

So if they were ready to admit they were "mistaken" on that issue, then why not admit (on camera) that they were mistaken about the location of the wound?

Plus.....

McClelland's laughable "pulled-up scalp" explanation is the proof right there that he certainly was NOT admitting (in any fashion) that he was mistaken about the big BOH wound he has always said he saw. Because both BEFORE and AFTER he went into the NARA room to view the autopsy photos, McClelland still maintained there was a big hole at the REAR of Kennedy's head/SKULL. And that is a SKULL wound we know he could not possibly have seen....and this X-ray below is the proof he couldn't have seen any such BOH hole, because all of the skull bone in the right-rear of JFK's head is still present and accounted for in this X-ray. (I wonder if the doctors were shown this X-ray at NARA in 1988 for the NOVA show. Anybody know?)

Edited November 27, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

.......

Edited November 28, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

30 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

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.

 

That's an example of Pat putting words into people's mouths in order to strengthen his case.

Another thing he does, in addition to that and cherry picking, is this... after deciding what he is going to believe, he searches high and low for every single thing that can be used to support his belief. A practice that also involves cherry picking. Like with the psychological stuff he uses to show that the doctors were wrong on the gaping wound location. And how an exit wound could really be an entrance wound, etc.

 

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

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 nconsciousness for the past 60 years? 

Not only did Harrison Livingstone appear to cite Dr. Porto directly, but Dr. Ronald Jones in 1997 also told a story about Dr. Porto speaking of something on the left temple.

[Pat Speer]

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

That's an example of Pat putting words into people's mouths in order to strengthen his case.

Another thing he does, in addition to that and cherry picking, is this... after deciding what he is going to believe, he searches high and low for every single thing that can be used to support his belief. A practice that also involves cherry picking. Like with the psychological stuff he uses to show that the doctors were wrong on the gaping wound location. And how an exit wound could really be an entrance wound, etc.

 

This is one of the most ignorant posts in the history of this forum.. 

A large percentage of my website is devoted to debunking things I used to believe, but came to disbelieve, after reading over 100 thousand pages of statements, testimony, and articles. My listing of the evidence supporting my conclusions is, I don't know, kinda what you're supposed to do, when you are trying to explain your position, and why you have come to believe something. 

[Pat Speer]

28 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Not only did Harrison Livingstone appear to cite Dr. Porto directly, but Dr. Ronald Jones in 1997 also told a story about Dr. Porto speaking of something on the left temple.

So??? Please don't tell me you're gonna cite him as an important witness who proves there was an entrance on the left temple...

I mean, to do that, you will have to claim that let's see the Parkland doctors and nurses who studied the body were wrong, the Bethesda doctors and assistants who studied the body were wrong, and the autopsy photos and x-rays were all faked, right? To hide a hole on the left temple proving someone fired from...where? The South Knoll? Plumlee-land? 

Perhaps we should do some research on common mistakes by doctors. I have by now had dozens of procedures performed in a hospital. A number of these involved my knee, wrist, arm, shoulder, etc. They usually have a doctors' assistant come in and put a mark on the knee wrist arm and shoulder etc before the procedure is to be performed, and have the patient agree to this mark. Why? Because doctors routinely mix up left and right and have to be shown which knee wrist arm and shoulder they are supposed to cut into, lest they cut into the wrong knee wrist arm and shoulder. Being told left or right isn't enough. They have to be shown. 

Since Porto viewed the body on its back, it would not be surprising if he yessiree mixed up right with left. He could very well have mixed up his own right and left while viewing Kennedy with Kennedy's right and left. 

For some reasons we get confused about this stuff all the time. Think of this example. A man is playing catch with his son, and yells out "Throw it to the left" Now, does the son throw it to his own left and his dad's right? Or to his dad's left and his own right? It's a toss-up, but I think most people initially think of their own left, and will only adjust and throw it the other person's left after giving it some consideration. . 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Micah Mileto]

27 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So??? Please don't tell me you're gonna cite him as an important witness who proves there was an entrance on the left temple...

I mean, to do that, you will have to claim that let's see the Parkland doctors and nurses who studied the body were wrong, the Bethesda doctors and assistants who studied the body were wrong, and the autopsy photos and x-rays were all faked, right? To hide a hole on the left temple proving someone fired from...where? The South Knoll? Plumlee-land? 

Perhaps we should do some research on common mistakes by doctors. I have by now had dozens of procedures performed in a hospital. A number of these involved my knee, wrist, arm, shoulder, etc. They usually have a doctors' assistant come in and put a mark on the knee wrist arm and shoulder etc before the procedure is to be performed, and have the patient agree to this mark. Why? Because doctors routinely mix up left and right and have to be shown which knee wrist arm and shoulder they are supposed to cut into, lest they cut into the wrong knee wrist arm and shoulder. Being told left or right isn't enough. They have to be shown. 

Since Porto viewed the body on its back, it would not be surprising if he yessiree mixed up right with left. He could very well have mixed up his own right and left while viewing Kennedy with Kennedy's right and left. 

For some reasons we get confused about this stuff all the time. Think of this example. A man is playing catch with his son, and yells out "Throw it to the left" Now, does the son throw it to his own left and his dad's right? Or to his dad's left and his own right? It's a toss-up, but I think most people initially think of their own left, and will only adjust and throw it the other person's left after giving it some consideration. . 

Dr. Gene Akin AKA Solomon Ben-Israel stated that he personally saw a temple wound, and do did Hugh Huggins, although Huggins was a clown. We also have witnesses who, at the very least, indicated that there was a blood clot on the left side which looked like a wound.

 

In 1967, we have Dr. David Stewart, who would relate conversations with Dr. Perry, also claiming to have heard there was a left temple wound (although there is no known record of him stating exactly where he got the left temple information, specifically).

 

Also in 1967, we have Father Huber denying having seen a wound near the left eye, and stated that what he saw must have been a blood clot.

In 1970, we have James Gochenaur apparently claiming that Elmer Moore said that Perry told him there was a small wound near the left eye.

In 1979, Dr. Marion Jenkins told Livingstone that he thought blood on the left side may have influenced McClelland to think there was a wound there.

Along with a 6/23/1990 letter, Dr. McClelland wrote on a copy of his original hospital report “This is my statement to the Secret Service. There was no wound at the left temple as First thought - simply much blood clot in that area” (Link). He also said this to the ARRB in 1997.

In 1992, Perry did reportedly say: The basis for this was an intern seeing blood on Kennedy’s temple, but there was no wound there, Perry said.

 

From Dr. McClelland’s appearance in D Magazine, The Day Kennedy Died by Michael J. Mooney, Nov. 2008: Jenkins had his hands full, but nodded down to Kennedy’s head. He said, “Bob, there’s a wound there.” The head was covered in blood and blood clots, tiny collections of dark red mass. McClelland thought he meant there was a wound at the president’s left temple. Later that gesture would cause some confusion.

Also in 1992, we have Dr. Crenshaw denying that there was a left temple wound but claiming that there was a "blood clot" in that area.

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Micah Mileto

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

I'd like to offer a perspective on why some people may prefer narratives from doctors, authors, or filmmakers over what appears to be undeniable facts captured in historical footage. It's understandable that many have deeply invested in their interpretations, but when faced with irrefutable evidence, I wonder how one can continue to support a narrative that contradicts it.

Coming from a family of medical professionals, I've observed a certain reluctance among doctors to acknowledge errors. This "god complex" seems common in the medical field, leading to a stubborn insistence on being right. In the context of the JFK assassination, I believe the doctors at Parkland Hospital, and subsequently the filmmakers who adopt their perspective, are not presenting an accurate account.

Take, for instance, the equivalent of Zapruder Frame 313 in the Marie Muchmore film. It clearly shows JFK’s brain and blood matter ejecting from the top of his head towards his left. This is similarly depicted in the Zapruder film, where matter is seen ejecting towards the grassy area on Elm Street. These pieces of visual evidence are hard to dispute, yet narratives that contradict them continue to persist. Why is that?

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

I'd like to offer a perspective on why some people may prefer narratives from doctors, authors, or filmmakers over what appears to be undeniable facts captured in historical footage. It's understandable that many have deeply invested in their interpretations, but when faced with irrefutable evidence, I wonder how one can continue to support a narrative that contradicts it.

Coming from a family of medical professionals, I've observed a certain reluctance among doctors to acknowledge errors. This "god complex" seems common in the medical field, leading to a stubborn insistence on being right. In the context of the JFK assassination, I believe the doctors at Parkland Hospital, and subsequently the filmmakers who adopt their perspective, are not presenting an accurate account.

Take, for instance, the equivalent of Zapruder Frame 313 in the Marie Muchmore film. It clearly shows JFK’s brain and blood matter ejecting from the top of his head towards his left. This is similarly depicted in the Zapruder film, where matter is seen ejecting towards the grassy area on Elm Street. These pieces of visual evidence are hard to dispute, yet narratives that contradict them continue to persist. Why is that?

 

 

 

Okay, so you believe in mass hallucination, but not in photographic alteration done to cover something up.

Gotcha!   

 

[Marcus Fuller]

I'm fairly sure that the program that aired recently (What the doctors saw) stated that none of the Parkland Doctors have seen the official, or the original autopsy photos. I'm sure there are also a number of people who saw photos which are different to the autopsy photos we have today. 

[Michael Griffith]

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.

I don't understand your thread title because the documentary certainly does not prove there was no exit hole in the back of the head. 

[Rich Taylor]

And the statement from the mortician readying the body for burial has no merit on the BOH?;

Gawler's Funeral Home Mortician. He helped prepare the remains of President John F. Kennedy for his coffin. Tom Robinson was a mortician at Gawler's Funeral Home. He was one of the key medical witnesses to support the possibility of a frontal shot. He is on record as describing the large defect in Kennedy's head as an " orange-sized hole, low in the center of the back of the head near the hairline ". Robinson assisted with the preparations for an " open casket funeral so preparation of the skull was especially meticulous ". Mortician Thomas Robinson was the specialist who had the most to do with the reconstruction of President Kennedy's head, and was one of three "hands on" embalmers who worked on President Kennedy's corpse on November 22, 1963.

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Rich Taylor said:

And the statement from the mortician readying the body for burial has no merit on the BOH?;

Gawler's Funeral Home Mortician. He helped prepare the remains of President John F. Kennedy for his coffin. Tom Robinson was a mortician at Gawler's Funeral Home. He was one of the key medical witnesses to support the possibility of a frontal shot. He is on record as describing the large defect in Kennedy's head as an " orange-sized hole, low in the center of the back of the head near the hairline ". Robinson assisted with the preparations for an " open casket funeral so preparation of the skull was especially meticulous ". Mortician Thomas Robinson was the specialist who had the most to do with the reconstruction of President Kennedy's head, and was one of three "hands on" embalmers who worked on President Kennedy's corpse on November 22, 1963.

Robinson said he had a 50 yard line view of the autopsy from the left side, and that the doctors worked on the head from the right side. So, no, he didn't see the wound before it was repaired during reconstruction. The man who actually performed the reconstruction, Strobel, is reported to have claimed the wound was on the top of the head. Now, no one disputes that the open hole of scalp and bone at the conclusion of the reconstruction was on the back of the head. This was because the morticians were told to prepare Kennedy as if there was gonna be a state funeral. In such case, any missing scalp or bone on the top and front of the head--the part to be viewed--would need to be covered up, or disguised. In any event, Horne acknowledges that the orange-size hole described by the other morticians was the hole as seen after reconstruction. So why does he pretend the orange-sized hole described by Robinson was at the beginning of the autopsy, when the hole at the beginning of the autopsy should have been much much larger, seeing as the three bone fragments flown in from Dallas were added back onto the skull during reconstruction?

Desperation. 

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Pat Speer