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

[Pat Speer]

44 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I am just beginning to look at the medical stuff myself

The trick is to skip the detailed discussions in the beginning.

Just stick to these 2 X-rays and try to memorise what they show (a medical wiki page can help to ID the different skull parts) :  

- right-lateral x-ray of the skull (in a but of a weird angle)

- an AP X-ray (front to back) of the the skull)

These are really the basis of what is being discussed on the headwound

It's fairly clear these do not show massive damage to the rear of the head,  compare that to what some of the Parkland Drs have said, etccccc.

So some will say these pictures are faked.

They do show massive damage to the top of the skull and the right side (IMO that's roughly about what I can see in the Zapruder frame's)

But there has been so many discussions on lead particle-trails, a mysterious 6.5mm object, the Harper fragment, etc

It all begins with these 2 X-rays

 

The lateral x-ray does in fact show extensive damage to the back of the head. The autopsy doctors said the back of the head was shattered and that pieces of skull fell to the table when they reflected the scalp, and this was confirmed by others in attendance at the autopsy including James Jenkins and Jerrol Custer. The A-P x-ray is another story. After spending a couple of years reading everything I could about forensic radiology, it became apparent to me that the fractures seen on the A-P x-ray are not fractures on the back of the head, as claimed by some of the HSCA's experts, but fractures of the eye sockets, which had been noted by other experts and described in the autopsy report. 

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

If McClelland accidentally used the word "left" instead of "right" when referring to a small hole on the temple, then it has no relevance as to the location of the blowout wound. Which nearly every (about 20) Parkland doctor and nurse said was on the back of the head.

 

That's my point. Many CTs cite McClelland as the best and most reliable witness to an occipital blow-out, when his initial report made NO mention of such a wound. 

Instead he 1) described the large wound he saw by the right temple as a large wound by the left temple,

OR 2) failed to mention the location of the large wound he saw, and instead mentioned an entrance wound he did not see which was not observed by the doctors standing in front of Kennedy, who had studied his wounds before declaring him dead. 

Option 1 is by far more likely, IMO.

Now, I know some view the loss of McClelland as a witness to an occipital blow-out as unthinkable. But it actually strengthens the case for conspiracy. His description of the wound is consistent with Clark and the autopsists' description of the wound, and this marks this wound as a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. Which leaves the EOP entrance unaccounted for. Which means two head shots. 

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Jean Ceulemans]

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The lateral x-ray does in fact show extensive damage to the back of the head. The autopsy doctors said the back of the head was shattered and that pieces of skull fell to the table when they reflected the scalp, and this was confirmed by others in attendance at the autopsy including James Jenkins and Jerrol Custer. The A-P x-ray is another story. After spending a couple of years reading everything I could about forensic radiology, it became apparent to me that the fractures seen on the A-P x-ray are not fractures on the back of the head, as claimed by some of the HSCA's experts, but fractures of the eye sockets, which had been noted by other experts and described in the autopsy report. 

 

 

 

Can you point to the extesive damage in the back on th R-lateral ? Or did you mean the fractured but still present bone structures ? I said extensive damage but meant missing bone. Ofcoure a bone can extremely damaged but stil there

[Sandy Larsen]

42 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

That's my point. Many CTs cite McClelland as the best and most reliable witness to an occipital blow-out, when his initial report made NO mention of such a wound. 

Instead he 1) described the large wound he saw by the right temple as a large wound by the left temple,

OR 2) failed to mention the large wound he saw AT ALL, and instead mentioned an entrance wound he did not see which was not observed by the doctors standing in front of Kennedy, who had studied his wounds before declaring him dead. 

Option 1 is by far more likely, IMO.

Now, I know some view the loss of McClelland as a witness to an occipital blow-out as unthinkable. But it actually strengthens the case for conspiracy. His description of the wound is consistent with Clark and the autopsists' description of the wound, and this marks this wound as a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. Which leaves the EOP entrance unaccounted for. Which means two head shots.

 

I doubt very much that McClelland originally thought that the blowout wound was on or near the right temple, and by accident said it was on or near the left temple.

I doubt very much that he would report only a small wound on or near one of the temples, but say nothing of the blowout wound.

I think you are misreading what McClelland reported. Here is what Dr. Aguilar said about McClelland's mistake:

It must be mentioned that there were those at Parkland who described a left temporal entry: Robert McClelland, MD, Marion Jenkins, MD (WC--V6:48) and Father Oscar Huber all mentioned such a wound.(BE:46, 331)

So Aguilar's impression is that McClelland reported a small (entry) wound on or near the left temple. (And, of course, he testified to the blowout wound on the back of the head for the WC.)

Since you're the one claiming that McClelland initially reported just one wound on the head, the one on or near the temple, I request that you provide a reference for that. I would like to read it myself.

 

[Pat Speer]

15 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Can you point to the extesive damage in the back on th R-lateral ? Or did you mean the fractured but still present bone structures ? I said extensive damage but meant missing bone. Ofcoure a bone can extremely damaged but stil there

You got it. The bone on the back of the head was fractured but still present beneath the scalp. 

[Pat Speer]

17 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I doubt very much that McClelland originally thought that the blowout wound was on or near the right temple, and by accident said it was on or near the left temple.

I doubt very much that he would report only a small wound on or near one of the temples, but say nothing of the blowout wound.

I think you are misreading what McClelland reported. Here is what Dr. Aguilar said about McClelland's mistake:

It must be mentioned that there were those at Parkland who described a left temporal entry: Robert McClelland, MD, Marion Jenkins, MD (WC--V6:48) and Father Oscar Huber all mentioned such a wound.(BE:46, 331)

So Aguilar's impression is that McClelland reported a small (entry) wound on or near the left temple. (And, of course, he testified to the blowout wound on the back of the head for the WC.)

Since you're the one claiming that McClelland initially reported just one wound on the head, the one on or near the temple, I request that you provide a reference for that. I would like to read it myself.

 

Wow. I thought you'd read my website. In chapter 18d I go through all the early reports written by the Parkland doctors. I present their full statements, and only then present my commentary. If Gary had been more thorough perhaps he could have avoided his embarrassing claim the left temple reference was a reference to a small entrance wound. In the report, McClelland mentions one wound--a massive wound--and the only location mentioned is the left temple. As stated, the only thing that makes sense is that he screwed up JFK's right with JFK's left. I've read hundreds of autopsy protocols and wound descriptions in forensics journals and no one but no one describes a wound as a wound "of" a location they never even looked at, while failing to mention the location of the wound they looked at. It's first day of medical school kind of stuff. 

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland

Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy

At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of  Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone.

Robert N. McClelland M.D.

Asst. Prof. of Surgery

Southwestern Med.

School of Univ of Tex.

Dallas, Texas

[David Von Pein]

59 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

In the report, McClelland mentions one wound--a massive wound--and the only location mentioned is the left temple.

But Dr. McClelland never saw any "left temple" wound. He got that erroneous info from Dr. Jenkins. See the quotes from McClelland below (via an interview that Vince Bugliosi had with McClelland in 2002).

Quoting from Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History" (page 406):

-------------------

"It was getting late in the evening, Dallas time, but before I ended the interview I reminded Dr. McClelland of the fact that in his Parkland Hospital admission note at 4:45 p.m. on the day of the assassination, he had written that the president died "from a gunshot wound of the left temple." "Yes," he said, "that was a mistake. I never saw any wound to the president's left temple. Dr. Jenkins had told me there was a wound there, though he later denied telling me this." "

-------------------

Many more excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's 2002 interview with Dr. McClelland can be found HERE.

------------------

Also go to the 14:21 mark in THIS 2009 INTERVIEW WITH DR. McCLELLAND, which is where McClelland talks about the erroneous "left temple" observation (which he, again, attributes to Dr. Jenkins and not to his own observations).

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

But Dr. McClelland never saw any "left temple" wound. He got that erroneous info from Dr. Jenkins. See the quotes from McClelland below (via an interview that Vince Bugliosi had with McClelland in 2002).

Quoting from Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History" (page 406):

-------------------

"It was getting late in the evening, Dallas time, but before I ended the interview I reminded Dr. McClelland of the fact that in his Parkland Hospital admission note at 4:45 p.m. on the day of the assassination, he had written that the president died "from a gunshot wound of the left temple." "Yes," he said, "that was a mistake. I never saw any wound to the president's left temple. Dr. Jenkins had told me there was a wound there, though he later denied telling me this." "

-------------------

Many more excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's 2002 interview with Dr. McClelland can be found HERE.

------------------

Also go to the 14:21 mark in THIS 2009 INTERVIEW WITH DR. McCLELLAND, which is where McClelland talks about the erroneous "left temple" observation (which he, again, attributes to Dr. Jenkins and not to his own observations).

 

That's what he said, alright. But spend a few years reading autopsy protocols and wound descriptions and get back to me, will ya? Doctors DO NOT write reports describing the wound they SAW as a wound "of" a location they didn't even look at. Only adding to my conviction... The initial reports of the doctors were published in a Texas Medical Journal a few weeks after the assassination. They were all word for word, except McClelland's. For publication in the journal, his description of "left temple" was changed to "right side of the head." Now, some will say oh they were trying to hide blah blah blah. WRONG. The rest of the reports were published with their references to a wound on the back of the head intact. Well, it follows then that the writers of the article checked with McClelland and he told them he meant to write "right side of the head." I don't know it for a fact. I just know it's true. In the weeks between the assassination and the publication of the article, Richard Dudman interviewed McClelland for an article, in which McClelland said the throat wound looked like an entrance but that there was nothing about the head wound to suggest the shot came from the front. Think about that. Years later, McClelland refused to cooperate with Jim Garrison's investigation because he thought Jim Garrison a psychopath. Think about that as well. And finally, think about what McClelland said on Canadian radio in the 70's, presumably before he saw the Z-film on TV and came to believe shots were fired from in front of Kennedy. He didn't want to talk about the assassination, but he was more than willing to explain why he and his colleagues were so reluctant to speak publicly on what they saw. He offered: "Nobody's trying to hide anything. It's just a pain in the ass. To have people bugging you all the time when it's all been laid out and what's gonna be known as far as we're concerned is known." He was then asked if the investigation of Kennedy's death had been resolved to his satisfaction. He responded "Yes." And left it at that.

Edited November 30, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Adam Johnson]

On 11/28/2023 at 2:12 AM, Steven Kossor said:

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.

Here you go Steven...

[Sandy Larsen]

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

In the report, McClelland mentions one wound--a massive wound--and the only location mentioned is the left temple.

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

But Dr. McClelland never saw any "left temple" wound. He got that erroneous info from Dr. Jenkins. See the quotes from McClelland below (via an interview that Vince Bugliosi had with McClelland in 2002).

 

And Dr. Jenkins corroborates what McClelland told Bugliosi in an interview with Gerald Posner. As I showed in my proof.

 

[Pat Speer]

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

And Dr. Jenkins corroborates what McClelland told Bugliosi in an interview with Gerald Posner. As I showed in my proof.

 

It wasn't a "proof." It was a confirmation of what I've been saying all along, and what has been on my website for 15 years or more. 

[Jean Ceulemans]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You got it. The bone on the back of the head was fractured but still present beneath the scalp. 

Thanks, this is all very new to me.

I'm still trying to figure out on the lateral what is a fracture and what is a suture. Sutures are not all the same on each and every skull, and the JFK pre-11/22 lateral X-ray I have available isn't that clear (I will look for a better copy first).  But most of the fractures are clear, so that helps.  Part of my problem is that all the documentation available is extremely detailed...

I need something like "Skull X-rays for Dummies" !

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 11/28/2023 at 5:40 AM, Michael Griffith said:

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. 

 

Keyvan is Pat Speer 2.0.  He interprets any evidence as supportive to his belief.*  Go figure.

 

*At least regarding the gaping wound on the back of Kennedy's head.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 11/30/2023 at 1:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

On 11/30/2023 at 1:12 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

And Dr. Jenkins corroborates what McClelland told Bugliosi in an interview with Gerald Posner. As I showed in my proof.

On 11/30/2023 at 1:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

It wasn't a "proof." It was a confirmation of what I've been saying all along, and what has been on my website for 15 years or more.

 

B.S.