Pat Speer Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 19 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: PAT SPEER WROTE: "When asked in the 80's to show the location of the one wound [Dr. Robert McClelland had] observed, moreover, he pointed to a location far above his ear, essentially at the top of the head, and inches away from where the wound was placed in the drawing mistakenly attributed to him. So, no, he is not much of an occipital witness, is he?" Wait a minute! 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 top 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, I HAVE CUED IT IN ADVANCE FOR YOU TO 26:08: A review of your website indicates that you have used this misrepresentation about Dr. McClelland -- and several other misrepresentations -- as the foundation of your crusade against the voluminous evidence of JFK's large avulsive back-of-the-head wound, meaning that it all comes down like a house of cards upon a showing that your bedrock assumptions are demonstrably false. Take for example your claim that "McClelland described but one wound, a wound of the left temple," which is in its entirety based upon your flawed assumption that the use by McClelland of the phrase "OF the left temple" in his initial report of the wounds means that he was unaware of what he and several other doctors believed to be the large exit wound in the back of the head. If you had actually read medical journals, as you relentlessly advise others to do, you would have learned that it was abundantly common in the era of the doctors who taught Robert McClelland in medical school to refer to entrance wounds with the prefix predicate "of" without need to specify an exit wound (as a means of shorthand). Not only that, but your effort to demonize Dr. McClelland by questioning his integrity in this manner is simply unconscionable, and in my view, places in question your entire project. Insinuating that Dr. McClelland was making money off of the assassination by selling his wound drawings and notes without any evidence that this was so strikes me as being profoundly out of bounds. Dr. McClelland's drawings and notes to researchers were so very prolific and common during his lifetime because of his devotion to the truth, and because of his generous disposition toward researchers -- it is a tribute to him that those items are now considered so valuable after his death. And sure, the sketch in Josiah Thompson's book was an approximation, as all of the witness sketches are, human memory being what it is, but it surely was not sinister of Dr. McClelland to value it so much as an approximation that he ratified it, and perhaps even considered it as his own; but it is sinister to set that sketch up as a straw man, as you have done, by virtue of insisting that the slightest deviation from it by other differing accounts of the wound constitutes conclusive evidence that the account in question must necessarily be impossible for daring to contradict autopsy evidence that is recognized as fraudulent by the majority of researchers who are recognizable as honest brokers who lack any vested interest in the government's theory of the case. You have criticized the sketch of the large avulsive back-of-the-head wound that Dr. McClelland made on TMWKK as contradicting estimations of the wound made by others who lacked first-hand experience with that wound, such as Horne and Mantik, but fail to acknowledge the remarkable similarity it has with the approximations of others who do have first-hand experience, such as Jim Jenkins, as follows: ABOVE: DR. MCLELLAND'S SKETCH OF LARGE BOH HEAD WOUND ON TMWKK (1988): ABOVE: JAMES JENKINS'S DRAWINGS OF BOTH OF JFK'S HEAD WOUNDS ON SKULL MODEL (2018): The remarkable similarities between the sketches of the large avulsive back-of-the-head wounds by the actual hands of both Dr. McClelland and James Jenkins is no mere coincidence. It is the mark of mutual corroboration that defies the cheap sleight of hand parlor tricks that you have thrown at them. It is the mark of authenticity; and accordingly, I think that you owe Jim Jenkins and the family of Dr. McClelland -- as well as all of the others you have misled -- a long overdue apology. For the following is the reality that no amount of hair splitting on your part can diminish... Oh my, from taking another quick glance, I see you are presenting a 2018 drawing by James Jenkins as support for the accuracy of the McClelland drawing. This is nonsense of the worst kind. As I've been saying since you got here, do the research. Jenkins pointed out the wound location on camera for Harrison Livingstone in 1991, and William Law in 1998, and pointed to the top of his head on both occasions. He then attended the JFK Lancer conference with Law, in 2013, and declared under repeated questioning that the back of the head was NOT blown out--that it was shattered beneath the scalp--but not blown out. A few years later, moreover, he attended another Lancer Conference, where I talked with him in the presence of Matt Douthit. He told us what he'd said before--that the back of the head was not blown out. When I pointed out to him that those championing him at the conference, such as Mantik, believed otherwise, and were insistent that the back of the head was missing when Jenkins viewed Kennedy, he said "What can I say? People will believe what they want to believe." He was then befriended by Chesser, and convinced to change his claims from there being a hole at the top of the head, and shattered skull on the back, to there being shattered skull on the top of the head, and a hole on the back. It's a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said: IMO those two pictures of McClelland placing his right hand on the back right side of his head are a depiction of a circumference circle. With his thumb touching the low point of the circle. The man was inches away from the back of JFK's head for 10 minutes or more. Directly in back of it. Is there any other doctor that was in Trauma Room one that had a better view of the back of head wound? I have to give him credibility based on that fact. And like so many other JFK witnesses, those that disagree with McClelland have to search for some subjectively questionable and biased reason to debunk him. The man was extremely attention seeking? What? How about he was so moved by the JFKA he felt a duty to get the record straight in regards to the hugely important head wound findings. He felt a sense of patriotic duty to speak up. Other doctors did not. You don't go on to a stellar long time career in a highly skilled area of medicine like McClelland and at the same time be some type of off base conspiracy kook. Bugliosi must have labeled 100 people in the JFKA story loons, kooks, crackpots to the point of his overdoing it to the point that he himself was kind of a crackpot in that extreme charge excess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said: I don't know, everyone can judge for themselves. To me, he rubs the back of his head with his thumb, but that is not where he is indicating. His whole gesture, the hand in that position resembling a circle, is where he is outlining the wound. The thumb running the back of the head is just a thumb rubbing the back of the head. Just my honest impression from watching the clip, others may disagree. Jeez Miles, you're doing exactly what Pat habitually does... cherry picks the part that supports his belief and ignores the rest. Didn't you listen to the audio accompanying the video clip? It makes clear that Dr. McClelland was referring to the back of the head, not the top, when he ran his hand down the back part of his head. In your post you quoted a paragraph of the OP, but you left off the very next, important paragraph. Here it is: Moreover, there is no way you [Pat] 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, I HAVE CUED IT IN ADVANCE FOR YOU TO 26:08: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Massicotte Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Jeez Miles, you're doing exactly what Pat habitually does... cherry picks the part that supports his belief and ignores the rest. Didn't you listen to the audio accompanying the video clip? It makes clear that Dr. McClelland was referring to the back of the head, not the top, when he ran his hand down the back part of his head. In your post you quoted a paragraph of the OP, but you left off the very next, important paragraph. Here it is: Moreover, there is no way you [Pat] 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, I HAVE CUED IT IN ADVANCE FOR YOU TO 26:08: "cherry picks the part that supports his belief and ignores the rest" Before I respond to this unfair comment, would you mind telling me what my belief is, since you seem to be aware of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 hours ago, Pat Speer said: Even if the Parkland doctors were confused as to the location of the wound (which they weren't... they are freakin' doctors!), the wound would still be on the back of the head... just higher up, around the crown area. And this would still be inconsistent with the back-of-head photos that show intact scalp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Moderator Note: I deleted the following because I accidentally posted it. And then I restored it because Miles protested. 1 hour ago, Miles Massicotte said: "cherry picks the part that supports his belief and ignores the rest" Before I respond to this unfair comment, would you mind telling me what my belief is, since you seem to be aware of it? I don't know what your belief is and I never said that I do know. I only said that you did what Pat habitually does. The proof of that is above. If you did that by mistake, then feel free to admit so. 1 hour ago, Miles Massicotte said: You said I cherry pick to support my belief. Your own words. Well, then you must be aware of my belief to see that I am cherry picking to support it. If you wrote that by mistake, then feel free to admit so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 18 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said: "cherry picks the part that supports his belief and ignores the rest" Before I respond to this unfair comment, would you mind telling me what my belief is, since you seem to be aware of it? Just for the record Sandy nothing in Miles comment that I saw took a position on where the wound was. He made a claim that it was the rest of the hand, not the thumb, that was indicating where the wounds was. He did not claim where that wound was. The claim of cherry picking to serve an agenda is invalid since you have no idea what agenda was there since he did not say. As for cherry picking, if you mean the decision to comment on one particular point under discussion instead of every topic at the same time, that is what every commenter does. The sole issue with his post should be whether you agree or disagree with Miles’ specific interpretation that the hand minus the thumb was doing the pointing or gesture-illustrating, not the thumb. You have not even said you think he was in error or correct on that. Why not express your opinion on that specific point (which was his only stated point) and discuss it with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 18 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said: "cherry picks the part that supports his belief and ignores the rest" Before I respond to this unfair comment, would you mind telling me what my belief is, since you seem to be aware of it? You stated your belief in your post, that McClelland was pointing to a wound on top of the head, near the back of the head (BTW, I accidentally submitted my response before I had previewed and decided to go with it. I quickly deleted it. This is the response I'm going with.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Massicotte Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said: You stated your belief in your post, that McClelland was pointing to a wound on top of the head, near the back of the head (BTW, I accidentally submitted my response before I had previewed and decided to go with it. I quickly deleted it. This is the response I'm going with.) Sandy I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your response was accidental, but unfortunately it means that my own response was deleted in the process, and now cannot be viewed by anyone including by myself. Should I wish to post something more substantive on this forum, I cannot do so in fear that it may be "accidentally" deleted, which to be seems to defeat the whole purpose of calling this a forum. I therefore resign this forum in protest. I do not wish for my account to be deleted so that what few posts I have made will be left up for posterity. I'll see some of you over at Jacks (and thanks Greg for the defense above, much appreciated). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: Just for the record Sandy nothing in Miles comment that I saw took a position on where the wound was. He made a claim that it was the rest of the hand, not the thumb, that was indicating where the wounds was. Greg, Get real. We all know that McClelland's index finger and thumb were pointing to the back of his head, and that his other fingers were on top of his head, near the back of the head. Miles specifically said that he believed McClelland wasn't pointing to the back of his head. What remains, of course, is the top of the back of the head. That, therefore is where miles thinks McClelland was pointing. 3 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: The claim of cherry picking to serve an agenda is invalid since you have no idea what agenda was there since he did not say. I never said Miles cherry picked for an agenda. Nor that he did so intentionally. Go back and read what I wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Even if the Parkland doctors were confused as to the location of the wound (which they weren't... they are freakin' doctors!), the wound would still be on the back of the head... just higher up, around the crown area. And this would still be inconsistent with the back-of-head photos that show intact scalp. That has been my point all along. That, yes, the doctors, when taken in combination, described the wound as further back than in the autopsy photos. If you want to take from that that the photos are fake, well, fine. Have fun. But people should stop pretending the doctors, when taken in combination, described a wound low on the back of the head, when they did not. For decades now certain researchers have taken that the doctors when taken in combination did not support the authenticity of the autopsy photos, and have then turned around and claimed that therefore the wound was low on the back of the head. It's a switcheroo. A con. And this con was pulled once again in the new Parkland doctors movie, when Jenkins says he thought he saw evidence of a wound by the temple and points it out, by his temple, and the director then cuts to Doug Horne, saying the wound he described was here, while pointing to his forehead, precisely where his pal Mike Chesser now claims there's a wound on the x-rays. It's a bait and switch. They exploit the witnesses' failure to endorse the accuracy of the autopsy photos to sell that what the witnesses saw was something the vast majority of them claimed they did not see. It's like. Aha! They said the shooter was wearing blue, when the man arrested was wearing green...so the shooter must have been wearing red. Edited January 4 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 27 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said: Sandy I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your response was accidental, but unfortunately it means that my own response was deleted in the process, and now cannot be viewed by anyone including by myself. Should I wish to post something more substantive on this forum, I cannot do so in fear that it may be "accidentally" deleted, which to be seems to defeat the whole purpose of calling this a forum. I therefore resign this forum in protest. I do not wish for my account to be deleted so that what few posts I have made will be left up for posterity. I'll see some of you over at Jacks (and thanks Greg for the defense above, much appreciated). Since you insist, I'll restore the posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Since you insist, I'll restore the posts. Hmmm.... I restored the posts but I don't see them here. Not sure what's going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Hmmm.... I restored the posts but I don't see them here. Not sure what's going on. Okay, the two post are back again. But they are merged into one post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 57 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said: I therefore resign this forum in protest. I do not wish for my account to be deleted so that what few posts I have made will be left up for posterity. I'll see some of you over at Jacks (and thanks Greg for the defense above, much appreciated). Miles, I wish you wouldn't leave, but I don't blame you one bit. Serious question: is there a means by which a moderator can be replaced? 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