David Von Pein Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Pat Speer said: If you read books on cognition, you will find that people are often confused about the appearance of something in a uniform manner, and that one of the chief causes of confusion comes from viewing something, such as a face, while it is rotated from how it would normally be viewed. But, IMO, the "Blood Pooling At The Right-Rear Of The Head" explanation, coupled with the known fact that Jackie Kennedy was busy in the limo "Trying to hold his head on" (which probably means she closed up the large flap on the right side of the head, which essentially masked all or most of the huge hole that Oswald's bullet created in the right-front of JFK's skull), are still much better explanations than the rather far-fetched and incredibly hard-to-believe "All Of The Doctors (In Unison) Couldn't Tell The SIDE Of JFK's Head From The BACK Of His Head Simply Because The President Was Lying Flat On His Back" explanation that author Jim Moore endorses in his 1990 book. Edited January 12 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 21 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: Incredibly, "Conspiracy Of One" author Jim Moore actually believed such a nonsensical thing. Quoting from my review of Moore's otherwise good pro-LN book: ------------------ "The second thing in this book that I cannot accept at all is Mr. Moore's explanation of why almost all of the witnesses at Parkland Hospital said they saw a large wound in the back of President Kennedy's head on November 22nd. To quote from page 180 of his book: "...The explanation for this [head wound] discrepancy is so simple few will subscribe to it. The Parkland doctors all saw President Kennedy in only one position--face up. An exit wound across his forehead might have been labeled 'at the front of the skull', but a wound on the right side? Doctors would have seen the missing area 'at the rear of the skull', of course." -- Jim Moore The above explanation is pure nonsense (even though I am an "LNer" myself). Moore is telling his readers, in essence, that ALL of the many Parkland doctors and nurses actually did see the President's head wound on the "right side" of his head, but EACH ONE OF THEM was apparently stupid enough to somehow label the wound's location as being at the BACK part of the head. (And each of these Parkland persons would later demonstrate with their own hands where they thought the wound was located; with each person placing their hand on a REAR portion of their own head.) It's just silly to think that ALL of these Parkland witnesses would somehow be disoriented enough to NOT know the "side" of the head from the "rear" of the head. And all just because JFK was lying flat on his back the whole time. It seems to me that such a strange explanation would be akin to becoming confused about the location of a person's ear, just due to the fact the person is lying down. For example, why would anyone suddenly think an ear was located at the BACK of a person's head, rather than the "side" of the head?" Oh dear... I'm having an episode of cognitive dissonance. I could have sworn that I just read a comment where DVP agrees with most CTers that the blowout wound was on the back of the head. How can I be so confused? Help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I could have sworn that I just read a comment where DVP agrees with most CTers that the blowout wound was on the back of the head. Good Lord! Why would you EVER think that I believe in something so provably false?! Edited January 12 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 11 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: But, IMO, the "Blood Pooling At The Right-Rear Of The Head" explanation, coupled with the known fact that Jackie Kennedy was busy in the limo "Trying to hold his head on" (which probably means she closed up the large flap on the right side of the head, which essentially masked all or most of the huge hole that Oswald's bullet created in the right-front of JFK's skull), are still much better explanations than the rather far-fetched and incredibly hard-to-believe "All Of The Doctors (In Unison) Couldn't Tell The SIDE Of JFK's Head From The BACK Of His Head Simply Because The President Was Lying Flat On His Back" explanation that author Jim Moore endorsed in his 1990 book. Oh, thank god. I thought I was going insane for a moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said: Oh, thank god. I thought I was going insane for a moment. I'm glad you got straightened out before your head exploded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) Seems Pat Speers Waterloo here ... regarding the nature of the head wound ... there are a lot of other areas where I agree with him completely ... I always thought that the the small entry wound at the right temple and the gaping wound in the lower back of the head confirming a shot from the front were enlarged and transformed into one wound which included the top of the head at Bethesda to obfuscate the the shot from the front and to make the lone nut fairy tale possible. (And David Von Pein happy.) Edited January 12 by Karl Kinaski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 I can't wait to see the Cliff Notes on this thread! It couldn't be but only a page long.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 6 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said: Seems Pat Speers Waterloo here ... regarding the nature of the head wound ... there are a lot of other areas where I agree with him completely ... I always thought that the the small entry wound at the right temple and the gaping wound in the lower back of the head confirming a shot from the front were enlarged and transformed into one wound which included the top of the head at Bethesda to obfuscate the the shot from the front and to make the lone nut fairy tale possible. (And David Von Pein happy.) So you're saying those watching JFK when he was shot, and only noticing one wound, an explosive wound by the temple...were hallucinating? It ain't my Waterloo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Zartman Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 5 hours ago, Paul Bacon said: I can't wait to see the Cliff Notes on this thread! It couldn't be but only a page long.... Here's a summary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 11 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said: Here's a summary. No it isn't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 1 hour ago, Pat Speer said: 1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said: Here's a summary. Expand 1 hour ago, Pat Speer said: No it isn't... Yes it is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Yes it is! Well, if nothing else, we can agree on the brilliance of John Cleese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 5 hours ago, Pat Speer said: Well, if nothing else, we can agree on the brilliance of John Cleese. I agree, no argument what so ever.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted January 21 Author Share Posted January 21 (edited) Pat Speer wrote: Quote Why do you keep repeating this gibberish? Aguilar has bought me dinner on several occasions, and has asked me to speak at conferences, and even stay at his house. We're friends. This idea of yours that he has schooled me or that I am a pariah in the research community because of my research and conclusions is nonsense. There is no consensus. Most everyone's theories are annoying to someone. While some of my theories annoy others, most all those annoyed by one or more of my conclusions will cite my research on one thing or another, or email me to ask me where I learned something or found this or that. Mr. Speer, you are reading a lot into what I wrote that wasn't there. I said that you had been schooled by Dr. Aguilar and many others over the period of a decade about the actual facts involved in Dr. McClelland's mistaken identification of an entrance wound to the left temple in his first day Admittance Note, and in doing so, I was presenting actual real world facts, as you can see in the following (This was an article by JFK Facts presenting a talk by Dr, McClelland and you were in the comments slandering and defaming Dr. McClelland with the exact same distortions that you make in the present day, and were being schooled on it not only by Dr. Aguilar, but by many others). Of particular significance from Dr. Aguilars lesson was the following which debunks your standard claim that none of the Parkland doctors ever claimed there were two wounds to President Kennedy's head. In fact, as Dr. Aguilar pointed out in the following, Dr. Jenkins claimed there were separate wounds in his Warren Commission testimony (an entrance wound to the left temple, with the large exit wound being the "temporal and occipital wound," which is the same mistake Dr. McClelland made in his Admission Note based, in fact, on Dr. Jenkins having communicated the same mistaken interpretation to him on the day of the assassination). Dr. Aguilar wrote: "...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) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit, “…the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit…” (WC–V6:51.) Jenkins described a wound in JFK’s left temple to Specter. Jenkins: “…I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.” Specter: “The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins.” Jenkins: “Well, I was feeling for–I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also.” A few moments later Jenkins again pursued the possibility that there had been a wound in the left temple: “…I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline, because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound there (indicating) (sic). Specter: “Indicating the left temporal area?” Jenkins: “Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating) (sic-presumably pointing to where he had identified the wound in prior testimony–the right rear of the skull), but you have answered that for me (that ‘the autopsy report discloses no such development’).” (WC-V6:51) https://jfkfacts.org/dr-robert-mcclelland-a-story-he-feels-compelled-to-share/#comment-864108 PAT SPEER MARCH 21, 2016 AT 7:57 PM Robert Prudhomme writes: “Note that McClelland reports massive head and brain injury FROM a gunshot wound of the left temple. In other words, the massive head damage was FROM the gunshot wound. Would he be telling us that an exit wound caused the massive amount of damage to JFK’s head? Wouldn’t that be a bit backwards? Pat Speer can spin great long posts (and he does) all day about this matter, and still not escape that McClelland was describing an entrance wound to JFK’s left temple; something that has never been ruled out as a possibility.” This is nonsense, Bob. By the time McClelland wrote his report, his colleagues had already gone on record claiming they’d thought the head wound to be an exit for the bullet entering the throat, or a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. No head wound beyond the large gaping hole had been observed. It follows, then, that McClelland thought the wound he observed was by the temple, which, ding ding ding, just so happens to be where it was observed by numerous witnesses in the plaza and outside the hospital. As stated, when shown the autopsy photos, McClelland has never claimed the photos are fake and that there was no wound by the temple. As stated, he has instead claimed the photos depict the wound he saw (but that he believes the wound stretched onto the back of the head). It’s beyond silly, IMO, to accept as gospel one part of McClelland’s latter-day claims (that the wound stretched onto the back of the head) while dismissing most everything else he ever said, including that the wound was apparent at the top of the head. Silly, and desperate. https://jfkfacts.org/dr-robert-mcclelland-a-story-he-feels-compelled-to-share/#comment-863255 BOB PRUDHOMME MARCH 18, 2016 AT 10:58 AM From Pat Speer “Geeez, McClelland is not what people want him to be, okay? He initially said the wound was of the left temple.” Pat Speer is attempting to mislead the membership here. Here is where this originated, found in Dr. McClelland’s medical report of 22/11/63: “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.” Is Pat Speer REALLY attempting to state that Dr. McClelland originally believed there was a massive blowout to JFK’s left temple? Would it not be more likely that Dr. McClelland believed the entrance wound was on the left temple? Here is how Dr. McClelland describes the head wound to the Warren Commission: “Dr. McCLELLAND – As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.” NOWHERE in his WC testimony does Dr.McClelland describe a large wound in JFK’s left temple. https://jfkfacts.org/dr-robert-mcclelland-a-story-he-feels-compelled-to-share/#comment-863299 GARY AGUILAR MARCH 18, 2016 AT 4:06 PM I think you’re right, Bob. McClelland apparently took professor Marion Jenkins, MD, the anesthesiologist’s, word that there was an entrance wound in the left temple. “Pepper” Jenkins was in a good position to know, since anesthesiologists sit but inches from the head during surgery. Part I Here’s the “rest of the story”: 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) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit, “…the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit…” (WC–V6:51.) Jenkins described a wound in JFK’s left temple to Specter. Jenkins: “…I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.” Specter: “The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins.” Jenkins: “Well, I was feeling for–I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also.” A few moments later Jenkins again pursued the possibility that there had been a wound in the left temple: “…I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline, because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound there (indicating) (sic). Specter: “Indicating the left temporal area?” Jenkins: “Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating) (sic-presumably pointing to where he had identified the wound in prior testimony–the right rear of the skull), but you have answered that for me (that ‘the autopsy report discloses no such development’).” (WC-V6:51) In an interview with the HSCA’s Andy Purdy on 11-10-77 Marion Jenkins was said to have expressed that as an anesthesiologist he (Jenkins) “…was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the closest views of the head wound…believes he was ‘…the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.’) (sic)…Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out–it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right–rear of the head.” (Emphasis added) (HSCA-V7:286-287) In an interview with the American Medical News published on 11-24-78 Jenkins said, “…(Kennedy) had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out.”. https://jfkfacts.org/dr-robert-mcclelland-a-story-he-feels-compelled-to-share/#comment-863300 GARY AGUILAR MARCH 18, 2016 AT 4:07 PM Part II: Amazingly, in an interview with author Gerald Posner on March 3, 1992, Jenkins’ recollection had changed dramatically. “The description of the cerebellum was my fault,” Jenkins insisted, “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) Jenkins has obviously forgotten that in his own note prepared, typed, and signed on the day of the assassination, Jenkins said, “a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic)”, and HSCA’s Purdy reported that Jenkins said “occipital or temporal bone” was blown out. When told by Posner that Robert McClelland, MD had claimed, “I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher.” Jenkins responded, “Bob (McClelland) is an excellent surgeon. He knows anatomy. I hate to say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right…”. (Posner G. Case Closed. p. 313) Clearly, Jenkins had forgotten that he himself had claimed that “cerebellum was hanging out” (as had Ronald Coy Jones, MD–see below). [Might this controversy be resolved in Jenkins’ and Jones’ favors? Possibly Jenkins believes that cerebellum was ‘hanging out’ but that it had not reached the surface of the gurney despite the close proximity of the skull in the supine position to its surface?] Jenkins, however, was not through with discrediting McClelland. To Posner, Jenkins explained how McClelland had made an error, which McClelland later corrected, that there was a wound in JFK’s left temple. “I’ll tell you how that happened,” Jenkins explained, “When Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, ‘Where are his wounds?’ And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my right hand, and was trying to take the President’s temporal pulse, and I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left temple as the wound.” (Gerald Posner, Case Closed”. p. 313) Ignoring the absurdity of such a supposition for the moment, Jenkins failed to reveal an important part of the story. Jenkins failed to tell Posner, who was apparently too uninformed to know, that it was Jenkins himself who had most strikingly claimed that there was an entrance wound in the left temple, as Jenkins’ Commission testimony (cited above) proves. As we will see, Dr. Jenkins’ faulty, and possibly self-serving memory seems to have frequently plagued him … . http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm Pat Speer wrote: Quote Which brings me back to Aguilar. If you read his recent review of the Parkland film you'll see that he was extremely critical of Horne's involvement. Now why is that? Because Horne twists everything to support his theory of body alteration, that's why. Well, what about Mantik? You probably think Aguilar supports Mantik, right? Wrong. Aguilar does not believe the Harper fragment was occipital bone, and finds Mantik (and Horne's) three head shot theory laughable. So why am I being singled-out for refusing to pretend there is a consensus on the medical evidence, that has all the answers? No one honestly believes that, IMO. Certainly not Aguilar, or Mantik, or Horne, or Groden, or lesser known but widely respected writers on the medical evidence like Randy Robertson and Joe Riley. Just who are you trying to impress? Or, if not impress, support? Mr. Speer, your penchant for erecting sandcastles of speculation on the shifting sands of your own assumptions is truly breathtaking. Here, you spin a dizzying web of baseless inferences about my beliefs, some bordering on the absurd. But unlike you, I won't stoop to diagnose your mental state with labels like "paranoia." Instead, I'll focus on the real issue: your relentless tendency to mistake figments of your imagination for factual bedrock. This very tendency – evident in your libelous and unconscionable allegations against Dr. McClelland – is the root of your current, unenviable predicament. You haven't unearthed a hidden conspiracy or unveiled a smoking gun. You've simply built a house of cards on the shaky foundation of your own unfounded assumptions. And now, this shaky structure threatens to come crashing down, not just on you, but on the shoulders of the McClelland family, who deserve far better than this public spectacle of baseless slander. Mr. Speer, you owe Dr. McClelland, his family, and the truth itself an apology. An apology for the reckless disregard of accuracy, the blatant disregard for decency, and the utter disrespect for history you've displayed. It's time you stopped mistaking assumptions for facts and faced the consequences of your actions. The sandcastles of speculation may crumble, but the foundations of truth stand firm. Choose carefully where you build your arguments, Mr. Speer, because the tide of facts is rising, and your house of cards is teetering precariously on the edge. Pat Speer wrote: Quote I've asked a few times and am still not sure where you stand. 1. Do you think the head wound was altered between Parkland and the beginning of the autopsy? (If so, well, then you better watch out before Aguilar, Groden, Robertson and Riley "school" you on this topic.) 2. Was the occipital bone blown out? (If so, well, then, you better watch out before Robertson and Riley "school" you on this one as well.) And I've answered your question a few times as well, but you seem not to register facts that you don't want to hear, so I will indulge you yet again: FACT: Mortician Tom Robinson described observing pathologist James Humes conduct a craniotomy on the body of President Kennedy during his interview by the ARRB: -he described a large, open head wound in the back of the President's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp. He related his opinion that the wound in the back of the President's head was an entry wound occurring from a bullet fired from behind, based upon conversations he heard in the morgue among the pathologists. (Robinson executed two drawings of the hole in the back of the President's head, one on an anatomy drawing of the posterior skull, and one on an anatomy drawing of the lateral skull. On the annotated lateral skull drawing, the wound in the rear of the head is much larger than the wound in the right temple.)..." "...REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT'S BRAIN: ROBINSON DREW DOTTED LINES ON THE DRAWING HE EXECUTED OF THE POSTERIOR SKULL WHICH SHOWS THE WOUND BETWEEN THE EARS. WHEN ASKED BY ARRB STAFF WHAT THE DOTTED LINES REPRESENTED, HE SAID "SAW CUTS." HE EXPLAINED THAT SOME SAWING WAS DONE TO REMOVE SOME BONE BEFORE THE BRAIN COULD BE REMOVED, AND THEN WENT ON TO DESCRIBE WHAT IS A NORMAL CRANIOTOMY PROCEDURE, SAYING THAT THIS PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED ON JFK. HE SEEMED TO REMEMBER THE USE OF A SAW, AND THE SCALP BEING REFLECTED FORWARD (emphasis in this paragraph not in original)..." MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm FACT: When the ARRB showed mortician Tom Robinson the top-of-the-head autopsy photographs, Robinson protested, saying the top-of-the-head damage depicted in the photographs was "what the doctors did" to remove bullet fragments, not damage caused by a bullet: "...After completing his four drawings of head wounds and describing those wounds, ARRB staff showed Mr. Robinson a set of what is alleged to be the Fox autopsy photographs to see whether they were consistent with what he remembered seeing in the morgue at Bethesda. His comments follow, related to various Fox photos: -Right Superior Profile (corresponding to B & W #s 5 and 6); He does not see the small shrapnel holes he noted in the right cheek, but he assumes this is because of the photo's poor quality. -Back of Head (corresponds to B & W #s 15 and 16): Robinson said; "You see, this is the flap of skin, the blow-out in the right temple that I told you about, and which I drew in my drawing." WHEN ASKED BY ARRB WHERE THE HOLE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD WAS IN RELATION TO THE PHOTOGRAPH, ROBINSON RESPONDED BY PLACING HIS FINGERS IN A CIRCLE JUST ABOVE THE WHITE SPOT IN THE HAIRLINE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH AND SAID "THE HOLE WAS RIGHT HERE, WHERE I SAID IT WAS IN MY DRAWING, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T SHOW UP IN THIS PHOTO." (emphasis not in original) -Top of Head/Superior View of Cranium (corresponds to B & W #'s 7-10): ROBINSON FROWNED, AND SAID WITH APPARENT DISAGREEMENT, "THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE WOUND WAS IN THE TOP OF THE HEAD." HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DAMAGE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS "WHAT THE DOCTORS DID," AND EXPLAINED THAT THEY CUT THIS SCALP OPEN AND REFLECTED IT BACK IN ORDER TO REMOVE BULLET FRAGMENTS (THE FRAGMENTS HE HAD OBSERVED IN A GLASS VIAL). ARRB STAFF MEMBERS ASKED ROBINSON WHETHER THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE TOP OF THE HEAD WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE MORGUE AND BEFORE THE BRAIN WAS REMOVED; HE REPLIED BY SAYING THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN," BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD (emphasis not in original)...." MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm FACT: Former Bethesda X-Ray Technician Ed Reed testified to the ARRB under oath that he observed pathologist James Humes reflect Kennedy's scalp and cut into his skull with a bone saw: TESTIMONY OF EDWARD F. REED: "...Q: Where you present during the time of the first incision. A: Yes. Q: What was the first incision? A: The cranium. The scalp, right here. Q: And can you describe how that procedure - A: Commander Humes made an incision. After we brought all the X-rays back, we were all allowed to sit up in the podium and observe. And Commander Humes made an incision - that I could see from my vantage point - an incision in the forehead, and brought back the scalp. Q: Okay. A: Like this. Q: And you were making a line first across the top of your forehead, roughly along the hairline - A: With a scalpel. Q: -and then pulling the scalp back. A: That's correct. Just like this. Q: And were you able to see the size of the wound when the scalp - A: Not from my - not from where I was, no. The podium was a good 20 feet away. Q: What else did you observe from where you were with regard to any incisions or operations on the head? A: WELL AFTER ABOUT 20 MINUTES, COMMANDER HUMES TOOK OUT A SAW, AND STARTED TO CUT THE FOREHEAD WITH THE BONE - WITH THE SAW. MECHANICAL SAW. CIRCULAR, SMALL, MECHANICAL - ALMOST LIKE A CAST SAW, BUT IT'S MADE - Q: Sure. A: - SPECIFICALLY FOR BONE. (emphasis not in original) Q: And what did you see next? A: We were asked to leave at that time. Jerry Custer and myself were asked to leave. Q: Do you know why you were asked to leave? A: Because we were - No more assistance - our assistance was not needed. X-rays were done. And someone decided that we weren't needed, and they asked us to leave...." In The Matter Of: PDF https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf Assassination Records Review Board In Re: President John E Kennedy, J1: Deposition of Edward E Reed October 21, 1997 FACT: Contrary to the tesstimony of Ed Reed and Tom Robinson, Pathologist James Humes testified to the Warren Commission that a saw was not important: "We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain." Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II at 354 -- https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscahume.htm FACT: According to former Bethesda Autopsy Technician James Jenkins, no skull cap (craniotomy) was necessary at autopsy, and he perceived that there were irregularities, such as the incision he noticed on the top of the head, that the connections between the body and the brain appeared to have been cut before the start of the autopsy, and that the brain that was removed from the skull appeared to be larger than he estimated it should have been. "...In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr. Boswell to the gallery. He made a statement, or asked a question really, “was there any surgery done on the head at Parkland?” What he was referring to is that there seemed to be an incision at one of the points on the large incision that radiated out toward the middle suture, and at that point in time I just looked at it as maybe something he was curious about and so forth, but then I realised that later on when the brain was removed, that incision made it possible for the wound to be spread, where we did not have to do the skull cap. We did the skull cap. Normally the way we took the brain out of the cranium, we made an incision from this ear to this ear across. We spread the scalp back and forward and we took a saw and made a notch at the front of the skull to orientate us when we replaced it, and we took the whole skull cap off and then we removed the brain. At that time we always attempted to remove the brain intact with the spinal cord. Sometimes it worked…very rarely did it work. Most of the time the spinal cord was torn off and we had to go in from the interior of the body. At autopsy we removed parts of the spinal cord off the spinal column and took that out. We did not have to do that with the President’s body. Actually I don’t really remember that we ever removed the cord itself, just the brain. W.L.:- Jim, let’s stop you for a minute because this is where the big controversy comes in. Paul O’Conner is well known, famous for saying that when he saw the head, there was no brain, that it had been blown out. Yet when we were in New Orleans 15 years ago you told me….you have to understand that Jim did not know me from Adam, and when I finally worked up the courage to be able to come and see him, he agreed. I didn’t know whether he was going to give me ten minutes or fifteen minutes. You have to understand that unlike Paul O’Conner, who was a wonderful gregarious person with a great sense of humour, he would tell you anything you wanted to know. Jim doesn’t do this stuff so that’s why we’re lucky to have him tonight. He just doesn’t involve himself. He’s never sought the limelight in this thing. Anybody that ever wanted to talk to him, they’ve always had to hunt him down and find him, if they were lucky enough to get to talk to him. So I was very lucky to be in a room, sitting with him asking these questions, and I could tell the look on his face, it was reluctant. He was reluctant to do it, but he did it and at one point I’m sitting there and Jim said, “one of the doctors made an exclamatory statement, and he was looking right at me when he said, I think what he said o.k., was meaning the brain, ‘the damn thing fell out in my hand.’” I asked Jim what does that mean to you? Tell ‘em what you said to me. J.J.:- O.k. That statement was made by Dr. Humes. To remember that Humes and Finck were actually the people who were working with the head, the head wounds. That was the statement. As I said before it was a statement that kinda surprised me, but as they took the brain out he handed it to Dr. Boswell who was actually across the table from me. Since I had been assisting with Dr. Boswell, I was the only corpsman at that point in time that was working with Dr. Boswell. I followed Dr. Boswell to the bucket of formalin where we infused the brain. I told William, I gave him some of the impressions that I had of the brain when I first saw it. My first impression was, the damage to the brain does not correlate with the extensive damage to the skull. What I mean with that was the right interior portion of the brain was damaged and there was some tissue missing. The brain due to the trauma apparently was in that area was kinda gelatinous and that pretty much stands to reason, because when you traumatise the brain, it’s not like traumatising a muscle, or something like that, where you get bruising and so forth. The brain actually has a large amount of fluid in so it kinda becomes mushy and gelatinous, that was what I saw. The other thing, I didn’t think that the brain was large enough. I had an impression that it was smaller than what it should be coming out of the cavity that it came out of. Now these were just impressions on my part. That was a first sight, first impression type thing. Dr. Boswell carried the brain to our bucket where we infused the brain. How we did it is important, because our normal method was we had a stainless steel bucket, we filled the bucket approximately half full of formalin. We had created a gauze sling that went over the top of the bucket. We laid the brain upside down in that sling. We had a two needle apparatus that came from a supply of formalin that was up on the top of the cabinets. What we did with it was, we took those needles, we infused the brains through the two internal carotids at the base of the brain. Those carotids were retracted and it was extremely difficult, and as a matter of fact we had one of the residents come in, which was the chief resident, because Dr. Boswell and Dr. Humes did not do this menial type thing of placing these suture needles in and so forth. So what we did was, we infused the brain and it was extremely difficult because of the condition of the carotids. W.L.:- So what does that mean to you Jim? J.J.:- Well, in my experience when vessels are severed for a period of time they retract, especially arteries, because of the way they’re constructed, and over a period of time it’s almost like they begin to close off themselves. The other thing I noticed was the brain stem, where the brain stem was cut to remove it from the cranium, the brain stem looked like it had been cut from two different sides, from each side met in the middle. I can relate that because if you’ve ever tried to cut something from the right side and go back and cut it from the left side, it never, almost invariably never is the same level, and this is what the brain stem looked like. You know, I’ve been asked many times about this, ‘did I think that the brain had been removed prior to the autopsy?’ Taking into consideration the abnormal things that I just described….I feel like it was...." Transcription of presentation given by Bethesda witness Jim Jenkins with researcher William Law, given at the ‘November in Dallas’ ‘JFK Lancer’ conference at the Adolphus Hotel on Friday 22nd November 2013. https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437612 FACT: According to former Bethesda Autopsy Technician Paul O'Connor, a craniotomy was not conducted on President Kennedy at the autopsy, and when O'Connor was informed of the differences in size of the large head wound at Parkland Hospital as compared with the reported size at the Bethesda autopsy, he speculated that a craniotomy might have been performed at Parkland. FACT: No craniotomy or "surgery to the head" were conducted at Parkland Hospital. FACT: When Dr. Malcolm Perry was shown the autopsy photographs for the first time in 1978, he was shocked by the size of the throat wound as it appeared in the photos and adamantly proclaimed "I didn't do that, that's a butcher job!" From Robert Groden’s appearance at a 2003 conference: […] As far as alteration of the body goes, the only evidence of that is the fact that when I interviewed Dr. Perry, he told me that he did not create that wound, he said- he stood up shocked and he pointed- pointed at the photograph, which I- again, I had shown him for the first time, he said I didn't do that. He said that's a butcher job. A tracheotomy hole is the size of a pencil to put a tube down there. If it leaks, it defeats the purpose. This hole is large enough to stick a fire hose down. It didn't work that way at all. It- it's sad but that's the case. […] From another conference with Robert Groden, undated, uploaded to Youtube 9/28/2021 by the Lone Gunman channel UCAG--Ai7Xh56gr6nxnX-24A: As far as alteration of the President's body goes, I believe that there’s there's- it's unquestionable that something was done to the president's throat. I interviewed Dr. Perry in 1978 and I showed him the autopsy photographs which he had never seen before, and he took a look at the throat wound in the photographs and he stood up at his desk and he was just shocked. He was silent for a moment, then he said ‘I didn't do that’, he said ‘that's a butchered job’. He said ‘I didn't do that’, and then he relived the entire tracheotomy, he stood up and he had his- what was supposed to be a- a scalpel in his hand and he showed doing it- doing the- the incision and said it was only about a little over an inch long he says- he just went on and on about why that couldn't have been what he had done. [...] Well, Mr. Speer, if Aguilar, Groden, Robertson and Riley are going to "school" me on the topic of whether there was surgery on the body of President Kennedy before the start of the "official" autopsy at Bethesda, then they had better be prepared to explain to me the craniotomy that Tom Robinson and Ed Reed reported to the ARRB which the Bethesda pathologists and autopsy technicians all deny was conducted at Bethesda, as well as the differences between the wounds as reported at Parkland and Bethesda. And to be perfectly honest with you, I could care less about Robertson and Riley's opinions, as they subscribe to the same pseudoscientific methods you do; for example, prioritizing the unwarranted assumption that the autopsy photographs and X-rays are all authentic, and on that basis mostly -- if they are honest about it -- rejecting Dr. David Mantik's ironclad conclusion that the Harper Fragment is occipital bone: Pat Speer wrote: Quote P.S. I just went back and read your bizarre diatribe about McClelland, in which you insist he mentioned two head wounds in his initial report. This is preposterous. Such a statement makes me worry about you Mr. Speer, your attempt to cloak your defamatory remarks about Dr. McClelland in the flamboyant garb of polemic only serves to expose the hollowness at their core. "Bizarre diatribe," "preposterous," and "such statements make me worry about you" may sound fiery, but they are nothing but desperate smokescreens obscuring a stark reality: your baseless accusations crumble under the slightest scrutiny. Contrary to your apparent belief, the merit of your arguments doesn't lie in the theatricality of your delivery, nor in the tenacity with which you cling to falsehoods in the face of overwhelming evidence. The legitimacy of your claims rests solely on the bedrock of verifiable facts, not the quicksand of rhetorical bluster. Instead of hurling empty insults, why not present a compelling case supported by concrete evidence? Dr. McClelland's reputation deserves more than cheap theatrics and unsubstantiated assertions. If you truly have something of substance, let the facts speak for themselves. Otherwise, your defamatory diatribe will be remembered not for its supposed persuasiveness, but for its pathetic attempt to compensate for a lack of substance with bombast. Pat Speer wrote: Quote NONE of the Parkland witnesses claimed to see two wounds in their reports, or in their testimony. Dr. Gary Aguilar schooled you otherwise, nearly a decade ago, and you are still peddling this lie? Specter: “Indicating the left temporal area?” Jenkins: “Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating) (sic-presumably pointing to where he had identified the wound in prior testimony–the right rear of the skull), but you have answered that for me (that ‘the autopsy report discloses no such development’).” (WC-V6:51) Pat Speer wrote: Quote And McClelland never said he saw two wounds. Dr. McClelland's "massive gunshot wound to the head" isn't a question mark hovering over history, it's a beacon of clarity piercing through the fog of your baseless accusations. To claim otherwise is to willfully twist facts into pretzels and then choke on the inconsistencies. Twenty minutes staring into JFK's open cranium wouldn't erase the sight of a that massive back-of-the-head wound even from the most forgetful doctor. Yet, you suggest McClelland, a renowned surgeon, somehow managed to overlook it entirely? Absurd. His reference to the "massive gunshot wound to the head" in the Admission Note isn't some phantom bullet conjured from thin air. It's a precise description of the gaping occipital-parietal crater staring him in the face – the one his opponent, Mr. Speer, conveniently forgets to mention. The macerated cerebellum wasn't some subtle garnish, it was a neon sign screaming "massive head wound here!" But you cling to the notion that McClelland later fabricated the occipital-parietal wound purely on the basis of his mistaken notation of a left temporal wound based on the representation of a trusted colleague, Dr. Jenkins. Conveniently ignoring the fact that Jenkins, in his later testimony, confirmed precisely what McClelland described: a possible entrance wound in the left temporal area. Possible, mind you, not definitive. A nuance your argument seems allergic to. Specter's question regarding the left temporal area? Merely clarifying an ambiguity arising from McClelland's initial, broader description of the "massive head wound." Jenkins' response? Acknowledgement of the possibility, followed by immediate clarification pointing back to the skull's right rear – the undisputed exit wound. To twist this exchange into evidence of a phantom wound is like claiming the moon landing was faked because Neil Armstrong's first footstep wasn't perfectly centered. Pathetic. Desperate. Dishonest. Dr. McClelland's reputation isn't tarnished by your smoke and mirrors. His description, while initially broad, accurately conveyed the gruesome picture before him. The left temporal possibility, later clarified, was just that – a possibility. To inflate it into a fabricated wound is an insult to logic and historical accuracy. Face it, your argument is a house of cards built on misinterpretations and wishful thinking. Stop flinging pebbles at Dr. McClelland's legacy and accept the truth: the evidence, meticulously documented, stands firmly on his side. OF COURSE that is what McClelland was describing in the Admission Note, precisely as Dr. Jenkins later described it to Arlen Specter: Specter: “Indicating the left temporal area?” Jenkins: “Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating) (sic-presumably pointing to where he had identified the wound in prior testimony–the right rear of the skull), but you have answered that for me (that ‘the autopsy report discloses no such development’).” (WC-V6:51) 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. COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392: APPENDIX VIII - MEDICAL REPORTS FROM DOCTORS AT PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DALLAS, TEXAS: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm LINKS TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT: PAGE 1: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0019a.htm PAGE 2: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0019b.htm Pat Speer wrote: Quote So what you're saying is what I've been saying. IF the wound of the left temple in his report was a description of an entrance wound--which he admittedly never saw--and his description of the massive wound was a description of a wound on the back of the head, which he later claimed to see, he is guilty of making a major mistake. A bad one. Doctors do not give locations for wounds they did not see while failing to provide locations for wounds they did see. At least not competent ones. Hold on, your argument is about as sound as a wooden submarine. You want to convict Dr. McClelland on the flimsiest of possibilities, all while playing a semantic game so convoluted it would make Houdini dizzy. Let's unpack this absurdity, shall we? Misconception, not Mistake: You assume Dr. McClelland is at fault for relying upon Dr. Jenkins's assurance that there was an entrance wound at JFK's left temple, ignoring the fact that physicians in the real world rely upon each other in this manner every day and in every hospital. McClelland, acting on that information, included it in his initial report. It's not a "mistake," it's a nuanced reflection of the evolving understanding at the time. Selective Blindness? Please. You claim McClelland only later "claimed" to see the massive back-of-the-head wound. Did you miss the part where he spent twenty minutes staring into the gaping skull cavity? The idea that he'd overlook any significant wound there -- as reported by each and every other physician in the room -- is laughable. Location, Location, Location: You conveniently forget that McClelland precisely described the massive wound to the back of the head, the one everyone agrees on. His report isn't a grocery list where he skips items at random. It's a snapshot of the grim reality unfolding before him. Competence in Question? Not So Fast. Your attempt to paint McClelland as incompetent by comparing him to "bad doctors" falls flat. He was a renowned surgeon, respected by his peers. To judge him based on your narrow interpretation of an initial report, written amidst the chaos of that day, is an insult to his expertise and a testament to your own tunnel vision. Occam's Razor of Reality: Your convoluted interpretation requires mental gymnastics worthy of an Olympian. The simpler, more likely explanation? McClelland, relying on the information available at the time from a trusted colleague, included Dr. Jenkins's mistaken left temple entry wound in his report. As the investigation progressed, the picture clarified, and the left temple possibility faded. That's called due diligence, not incompetence. So, instead of flinging accusations around like confetti at a bad party, consider this: Dr. McClelland acted competently and responsibly based on the evolving information he had. His report reflects that, not some imaginary blunder you've conjured up. If you want to play the blame game, look elsewhere. Dr. McClelland's legacy stands tall, unfazed by your smoke and mirrors. And again, you owe the McClelland family a long overdue apology. Pat Speer wrote: Quote As the news was filled with witnesses pointing to their temples, moreover, it's actually much more respectful to McClelland's reputation for us to assume he didn't pay much attention to the exact location and was confused by what he saw on TV, than to say he gave a location for a wound he never saw. Hold your horses, your "respectful assumption" gallops straight into the land of laughable absurdity. You want to rewrite history with a feather dipped in wishful thinking and offer Dr. McClelland a pat on the head instead of the respect he deserves? Let's demolish this straw castle of an argument, brick by brick: Witnesses and Whispers: You cling to "news reports" and "witnesses" like a life raft in a sea of facts. But these accounts were often contradictory, chaotic, and prone to misinterpretation. To base McClelland's reputation on such shaky ground is like building a skyscraper on sand. Confusion or Competence? Choose Wisely. Are you suggesting a renowned surgeon, who stared into JFK's open skull for twenty minutes, was so easily bamboozled by flickering TV images that he fabricated a wound? This isn't a B-movie plot, it's the assassination of a president. To paint McClelland as clueless is an insult to his expertise and a slap in the face to historical accuracy. Location, Location, Location: You conveniently ignore the precise description McClelland gave of the massive wound on the back of the head, the one everyone agrees on. His report wasn't a blurry watercolor painting, it was a meticulous map of the carnage he witnessed. To claim he "didn't pay attention" is like accusing Michelangelo of doodling on a napkin. Respectful Revisionism? No, Revisionist Disrespect. Your "respectful assumption" is actually disrespectful. It reduces a seasoned doctor to a confused bystander, swayed by media frenzy. It implies his report, a crucial historical document, is nothing more than a scribbled note under the influence of TV static. This is an egregious distortion of both McClelland and history. Occam's Razor Revisited: Occam's Razor whispers in your ear, my friend. The simpler, more likely explanation? McClelland, based on the information available at the time, including Jenkins' input, noted two potential wound locations. As the investigation unfolded, the picture clarified, and the left temple possibility faded. That's called professional diligence, not confused daydreaming. So, before you drape Dr. McClelland in the tattered cloak of your "respectful assumption," consider this: his report stands as a testament to his competence and dedication in the face of unimaginable tragedy. To rewrite it based on unsubstantiated speculations and media noise is not respect, it's revisionist disrespect. If you truly want to honor Dr. McClelland, acknowledge the facts, not your own fanciful narratives. Pat Speer wrote: Quote P.P.S. You made out that I'd accused McClelland of malpractice. This is not true. Malpractice does not mean making a mistake, it means making a mistake that causes a patient harm. I know you know this stuff. So why are you trying to put words in my mouth? The following is YOU writing a metaphor to demonstrate that Dr. McClelland committed malpractice and was "grossly incompetent." PAT SPEER WRITING: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29935-proof-that-pat-speer-is-wrong-about-dr-mcclelland-initially-saying-the-gaping-wound-was-near-the-temple/page/2/#comment-521630 "I have been urging the members of this forum to get off their butts and read some actual medical reports, and not just repeat the gibberish found in most books on the assassination. IF your father was shot in the stomach, and died, and the emergency room doctor charged with saving his life put in his report that your father was shot in the back, you would do well to contact a lawyer. If that doctor then told your lawyer that what he meant was that he saw someone point to your father's back, but never looked at it, and then assumed this person was telling him your father was shot in the back by a bullet that exited his stomach, and that he then forgot to mention the stomach wound in his report, well, your lawyer would suggest you sue. As a recitation of the doctor's explanation would convince even the most skeptical of juries that the doctor was grossly incompetent, and that his incompetence may have played a role in your father's death. moreover, it's near certain the hospital would then terminate the doctor and settle your lawsuit. For millions. The doctor would then be referred to the AMA and lose his medical license." Mr. Speer, your attempt to slither out of your own slanderous claims under the guise of a medical analogy is as transparent as a glass coffin. Let's dissect your "harmless mistake" argument and expose the rotten core beneath the flimsy veneer: False Equivalence Fallacy: Your stomach-wound doctor is a straw man, as flimsy as tissue paper. Comparing JFK's assassination, a national tragedy under intense scrutiny, to a routine ER case is like comparing a rocket launch to a kid on a scooter. The stakes, the procedures, the level of attention to detail – worlds apart. Selective Blindness and Convenient Amnesia: Your doctor "saw someone point" but forgot to look himself? Convenient plot twist. Dr. McClelland, on the other hand, spent twenty minutes staring into JFK's open skull. To suggest he somehow missed a major wound while fixated on a colleague's gesture is laughable. Cherry-Picking Evidence and Ignoring Context: You conveniently ignore that McClelland also described the massive wound on the back of the head, the one everyone agrees on. His report wasn't a single bullet point, it was a comprehensive map of the carnage before him. To claim he "forgot" a wound is like accusing Michelangelo of forgetting the Sistine Chapel's ceiling. Malpractice: Motive Matters: Even in your fantastical doctor scenario, malpractice hinges on negligence and potential harm. You haven't shown how Dr. McClelland's initial report, later clarified during the investigation, caused "harm" to the JFK case. Your analogy crumbles like a stale biscuit. Occam's Razor of Reality: The simpler explanation? McClelland, relying on the information available at the time (including Jenkins' input), noted two potential wound locations. As the investigation progressed, the picture clarified, and the left temple possibility faded. That's called due diligence, not malpractice. So, Mr. Speer, instead of hiding behind smoke and mirrors, face the facts: your accusations are baseless, your analogy a farce. Stop playing word games and twisting history to fit your narrative. Dr. McClelland's legacy stands tall, unfazed by your desperate attempts at slander. If you truly care about truth and justice, focus on presenting evidence, not weaving fictional scenarios. Pat Speer wrote: Quote And besides...just how is it offensive for me to say McClelland made a mistake when he claimed he'd made an even worse mistake? I mean, we've had threads on this forum where it was postured that Perry cut into Kennedy's throat to finish him off, and we've had a prominent member of this forum write a book in which he offered that a number of the Parkland doctors were in on the plot to kill Kennedy. And few objected. But my claiming McClelland's mistake was less severe than his admitted mistake makes me the bad guy? Why? How is that? Oh, because in my offered possibility, I indulge the sacrilege that the wound observed by McClelland was a few inches forward from where you want it to be? Okay. Got it. Mr. Speer, your attempt to play the martyr of free speech while defending your demonstrably false claims about Dr. McClelland is as transparent as a plastic surgeon's facelift. Let's peel back the layers of your "victim complex" and reveal the ugly truth beneath: 1. Moral Equivalence Fallacy: Comparing your "minor slip" about McClelland's wound location to outlandish conspiracy theories like throat-slitting and doctor-orchestrated assassinations is like claiming a spilled coffee stain compares to an oil tanker spill. One is a harmless mistake, the other a deliberate attempt to pollute history with misinformation. 2. Selective Outrage: Your selective indignation is as transparent as a glass door. You conveniently forget the outcry and condemnation that met the Perry and Parkland accusations you cite. Don't try to hijack legitimate criticism of harmful conspiracy theories and cloak your own slander under their tattered banner. 3. Shifting the Burden of Proof: You claim we "want" the wound's location "a few inches forward" as if it's some arbitrary whim. The burden of proof, Mr. Speer, lies with you. Where's your evidence, your proof, for this "few inches forward" claim? Or are you content to peddle unsubstantiated fiction and call it free speech? 4. Deflection and Whataboutism: Your argument boils down to "everyone else says crazy things, so why can't I?" This childish deflection doesn't erase the fact that your claim about Dr. McClelland is demonstrably false, unsupported by evidence, and deeply disrespectful to his reputation and historical accuracy. 5. Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Speer: You bemoan our supposed objection to "indulging the sacrilege" of a slightly different wound location. Yet, you're the one indulging in the far greater sacrilege of twisting history, slandering a distinguished physician, and playing fast and loose with the facts surrounding a national tragedy. So, Mr. Speer, before you drape yourself in the tattered cloak of free speech, consider this: true freedom in discourse begins with respect for truth, accuracy, and the basic decency of not smearing the reputations of those who cannot defend themselves. Your claims about Dr. McClelland are neither free nor speech. They are demonstrably false, deeply harmful, and deserve nothing but unequivocal condemnation. Edited January 21 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 (edited) Pat Speer wrote: Quote I'm sorry, Keven, but your posts are insulting, not just to me, but to anyone who's studied the case. You are writing as if there is some kind of consensus that has been reached whereby a large number of other researchers have flocked around your distortions of the meaning of Dr. McClelland's first day Admission Note being that he saw only a large wound at President Kennedy's right temple (which he misdescribed as the left temple) when the fact is that a long list of other researchers, including Dr. Gary Aguilar -- and more recently Sandy Larsen and myself -- have been schooling you for more than a decade on some very simple facts about that Admission Note; that it identified two wounds, a "a massive gunshot wound of the head," which he believed to be the exit wound, and ''a gunshot wound of the left temple," which he believed to be the wound of entrance, based upon his colleague, Dr. Jenkins having represented to him that there was an entry wound at the left temple. Let's set the record straight. Dr. McClelland's note unequivocally identified two distinct wounds: a "massive gunshot wound of the head," which he believed to be the exit wound, and "a gunshot wound of the left temple," which he believed to be the entrance wound. Your attempt to twist this into a large right temple wound is a desperate and transparent ploy to fit your narrative. It is evident that Dr. McClelland was mistaken about the left temple wound based on Dr. Jenkins mistakenly telling him that there was a left temple wound, a fact that you conveniently overlook to serve your own agenda. Your claim that my presentation of these well-established facts is insulting to those who have studied the case is not only baseless but also a cheap tactic to deflect from the truth. It is nothing short of gaslighting to suggest that a majority of researchers are "insulted" by these fundamental and widely recognized facts. Your discomfort with having your project questioned is palpable, but your reaction is hardly surprising. It is clear that exposing your fallacies threatens your entire narrative, and understandably, that rattles you to the core. Your persistent distortions and attempts to manipulate the truth are not only intellectually dishonest but also an insult to the integrity of historical inquiry. It's time to abandon your self-serving narrative and engage with the facts as they stand, rather than perpetuating a skewed version of events to suit your agenda. ____________ 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. COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392: APPENDIX VIII - MEDICAL REPORTS FROM DOCTORS AT PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DALLAS, TEXAS: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm LINKS TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT: PAGE 1: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0019a.htm PAGE 2: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0019b.htm ____________ Pat Speer wrote: Quote Now, did [Dr. McClelland] consistently claim post-1963 that the wound he saw was on the back of the head? Yes. And did he subsequently claim the wound in the autopsy photos was lower than he recalled? Yes, no one disputes that. But was he consistent in where he placed the wound, as to above the ear or at the level of the ear? No, not at all. In most of his demonstrations, including the one in TMWKK, he placed the wound above the ear--which would be inconsistent with the wound's overlaying cerebellum. This too is another one of your distortions of the facts. Dr. McClelland referred to the "massive gunshot wound of the head" in his first day Admission Note (as did Drs. Clark, Carrico, Perry, Baxter and Jenkins in their accompanying Admission Notes), and he likewise thereafter consistently described and demonstrated that wound until the day of his death. To demonstrate this, let's take the evidence you present to the contrary on your website, which we'll call Exhibit A: In Exhibit A you present screenshots of Dr. McClelland with his right hand on his head demonstrating the large avulsive back of the head wound from TMWKK and KRON's JFK: An Unsolved Mystery, and in parenthesis you tell us to "Just look at the locations of his fingers in comparison to his hairline...," to stand for your proposition that McClelland was actually demonstrating your side of the head wound instead of the occipital-parietal wound he has always described. There is a problem with the screenshots you use in Exhibit A however, and it is a BIG PROBLEM! The actual footage from the TMWKK episode shows that McClelland is actually just resting his fingers on the top of his head while rubbing his thumb up and down the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of his head to indicate the location of the large wound, right where he has ALWAYS maintained that it was located. And you have cherry picked a frame from that segment and have falsely described it as being McClelland indicating that the large wound was instead on the side of JFK's head. As can be seen in the following clip of McClelland's entire hand gesture, he is running his thumb up and down on the right side of the back of his head as he describes the location of the large head wound to the interviewer. Moreover, there is no way you could have merely been confused about what Dr. McClelland was communicating with his hand gesture when you were capturing the screenshot from the segment because at the time, in that video, he was saying the following: "Almost a fifth or perhaps even a quarter of the right back part of the head in this area here [AT WHICH POINT MCLELLAND RAN HIS THUMB UP AND DOWN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD] had been blasted out along with probably most of the brain tissue in the area." See SEGMENT ON YOUTUBE: Likewise, the actual footage from the KRON episode shows that McClelland is again just resting his fingers on the top of his head while rubbing his thumb up and down the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of his head to indicate the location of the large wound, right where he has ALWAYS maintained that it was located. And you have cherry picked a frame from this segment as well and have falsely described it as being McClelland indicating that the large wound was instead on the side of JFK's head. As can be seen in the following clip of McClelland's entire hand gesture, he is running his thumb up and down on the right side of the back of his head as he describes the location of the large head wound to the interviewer. It is not as obvious as it is in the TMWKK episode, but if you watch how his wrist moves, you can see that his manner of demonstrating the wound is to rest his fingers higher on his head and to feel around for the occipital bone with his thumb. And if you have any doubt at all, simply listen in the video of the segment to hear that as Dr. McLelland is feeling the back of his head with his thumb, he is saying the following: "It was in the right back part of the head -- very large..." See SEGMENT ON YOUTUBE: Such trickery is the law of the land for Mr. Speer, and others like him, such as David Von Pein, who has the following meme of deceptive screenshots on his website: To debunk Mr. Von Pein -- as we just debunked Mr. Speer -- I wrote the following: Here's the problem: You've presented this meme of Dr. McClelland in the 1988 PBS Nova program "Who Shot President Kennedy" in support of the notion that he was communicating that the large avulsive back of the head wound that he reported to the Warren Commission was actually on the side of JFK's head in the parietal area over the ear. But close examination of the program reveals that your two screenshots comprising your Lone Nutter meme were taken when McClelland quickly made these gestures while highly animated in thought and speech, making for a very misleading impression of what he was intending to communicate. I say this because in the same program, within minutes of the footage from which you derived these two screenshots, Dr. McClelland takes his hand and swirls his fingers in a vertically oriented oval shape on the back of his head to demonstrate the location of the large avulsive wound, as follows: I have slowed this footage down to 25% of its normal playing speed and turned it into a GIF to highlight his oval shaped vertical gesture. Moreover, we can be certain that McClelland was much more focused on presenting an accurate demonstration of the dimensions of the back of the head wound at this time -- as opposed to your screenshots -- because while doing so (when presenting his rationalization for why the large avulsive wound is not visible in the BOH autopsy photos) he was saying the following (AND PLEASE NOTE THAT I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THE EXACT WORDS HE IS SAYING WHILE MAKING THE OVAL SHAPED GESTURE IN RED). _____________ "The Pathologist has taken this loose piece of scalp which is hanging back this way in most of the pictures, exposing this large wound, and has pulled the scalp forward to take a picture..." _____________ As follows is a video of the segment described above to allow you to appreciate the importance of what Dr. McClelland is saying simultaneous with his hand gesture (it is at 50:37 through 50:53 of the original program at this link: https://youtu.be/SL9orid231c?si=4Fo7ICwInJX-rxKO ). So although Mr. Speer is a "limited hangout" version of Mr. Von Pein, we can see that these types who deny the first day medical testimony and relentlessly fight for the integrity of the Autopsy Protocol, Photos, X-Rays and the Zapruder film are more alike than Speer would ever admit. In short, the misrepresentations about Dr. McClelland -- as demonstrated in Exhibit A -- serving as the foundation of Speer's crusade against the voluminous evidence of JFK's large avulsive back-of-the-head wound, all comes down like a house of cards upon a showing that his bedrock assumptions are demonstrably false. Again, Dr. McClelland referred to the "massive gunshot wound of the head" in his first day Admission Note (as did Drs. Clark, Carrico, Perry, Baxter and Jenkins in their accompanying Admission Notes), and he likewise thereafter consistently described and demonstrated that wound until the day of his death, and as we have seen above, the evidence Speer presents to the contrary is nothing more than the sophistry of deceptively labeled screenshots. Pat Speer wrote: Quote But...did the Parkland doctors thinking they saw cerebellum actually believe the wound overlay the cerebellum? That's a tricky one. As Clark and presumably others floated the idea that the throat wound was an entrance for a bullet exiting the back of the head, they could very well have believed the cerebellum was damaged as the bullet exploded upwards, and that it exited above the cerebellum. (If I recall Peters actually said something like this.) Sure, and "we could very well believe" the moon is made of blue cheese. What seals the deal on this is that Dr. Kemp Clark was a very competent and well-respected neurologist, and he identified the extruding macerated brain as cerebellar tissue, as did virtually all of the surgeons that completed first day Admission Notes along with Dr. McClelland (Drs. Clark, Carrico, Perry, Baxter and Jenkins). Pat Speer wrote: Quote In any event, McClelland did NOT draw the so-called McClelland drawing, nor assist in its creation. In fact, he actually claimed it was inaccurate, and not just once, but on multiple occasions. SO...if you really believe McClelland, you should acknowledge that the drawing was inaccurate, and quit presenting it in your "gallery." You are writing as if it is me, rather than you, who is always setting up the drawing out of the Thompson book as a straw man to knock down and ridiculously use like a bowling ball to knock over the pins you designate as the earliest reports of the Parkland doctors and nurses. No, Speer, that's all your gig, and it's an artificial farcical one at that. I, on the other hand just started a thread on the actual back-of-the-head image that McClelland sketched on TMWKK, and the following is that drawing: Pat Speer wrote: Quote As far as Jenkins...whoa. Now I owe Jim Jenkins an apology? For what? I was in the room with Jenkins alongside Thompson, Aguilar, and Mantik...when he stated under repeat questioning that the back of the head was damaged beneath the scalp, and that the hole was at the top of the head. It wasn't me that turned around and misrepresented what he said as supporting that the back of the head was blown out. That was Doug Horne, after being briefed by Mantik. And it wasn't me that coerced him into flipping it around and claiming the hole was on the back of the head and the damaged skull was at the top of the head. That was Mike Chesser. I've only just begun to take apart the libel and misrepresentations you have disseminated about James Jenkins, and will here give you a downpayment on that investment: James Jenkins's earliest -- and therefore his most credible -- representations about the large avulsive back-of-the-head-wound was that it was in the occipital-parietal region, and there is absolutely nothing you can ever do -- regardless of how loud you scream, and how hard you kick -- to change this fact. No matter how much ink you devote to distortions about Jenkins, you can never change that he executed the following diagram of the head wound for the HSCA in 1977: And by the way, while you consider extending an apology to Mr. Jenkins, I caution you to bear in mind that your apology to the family of Dr. Robert McClelland is long overdue. And you can never change the fact that Jenkins told David Lifton the wound was occipital-parietal in 1979: Pat Speir wrote: Quote So do the research, and cool it with the hate And here is another example of the "woke" defense you deployed against me today to defend yourself against my demonstration that you were completely fabricating your summary of the ARRB deposition of Jerrol Custer. You claimed that I am a "stalker." You are getting this all backwards, Mr. Speer. Throwing accusations like that at me for confronting you about your fabricated research is what I would characterize as "hate," while I have done nothing but, well ...the research necessary to expose and shine a spotlight on those very fabrications. Perhaps you should reword your concluding remark to state something like "Dear fellow researchers, I today commit to you that I will never attempt to deceive you again, and to lend credibility to my commitment, I will today take down my website and do some deserving honest research on my claims before putting it back up." I'm certain that the family of Dr. Robert McClelland would appreciate that very much... Edited January 24 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now