WHY PAT SPEER OWES THE FAMILY OF DR. ROBERT McCLELLAND AN APOLOGY

[Sandy Larsen]

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. 

 

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.

 

1 hour ago, Miles Massicotte said:

If you wrote that by mistake, then feel free to admit so. 

 

No mistake.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Miles Massicotte said:

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 only deleted your post because it responded to something I accidentally posted and then deleted. Your post was very short and could have been quickly rewritten with a response more appropriate for my updated post. Anybody can see that if they go go back and read the posts.

Here's a link to them:

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I never said Miles cherry picked for an agenda. Nor that he did so intentionally. Go back and read what I wrote.

Sandy could you say what you mean by “cherry picking”? Your definition?

Edited January 4 by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

14 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy could you say what you mean by “cherry picking”? Your definition?

 

I need to go, so this needs to be quick.

Cherry picking is when one chooses to consider only evidence that supports their belief, and ignores evidence that opposes it. People who have a preconception will unusually cherry pick if necessary to support their preconception. In contrast, people who have no preconception and are just searching for the truth, will not cherry pick.

As a side note, witness testimony that is fresh is generally more accurate than older testimony. Because of that, I don't consider it to be cherry picking if one gives a greater weight on early testimony.

Having said all that, I'll note that, after someone considers all the evidence, and reaches a conclusion based on its totality... after that it is natural to quit thinking about the smaller amount of counter-evidence because it is likely just noise (misunderstandings, etc.). I don't consider that to be cherry picking. (However, if the person's conclusion came as a result of cherry picking, then this would still be cherry picking.)

A perfect example of cherry picking IMO is looking at McClelland's hand only, without listening to what he says, and draw a conclusion based on only that. Especially if one discounts or ignores the location of the index finger and thumb.

(That took longer than I had hoped.)

 

[Keven Hofeling]

On 1/4/2024 at 9:29 AM, 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.

There are additional grounds to conclude that Dr. McClelland is delineating the back-of-the-head wound with his thumb in this clip rather than his outstretched fingers.

In the same episode of TMWKK, Dr. McClelland sketched the back of the head wound, and that segment can be seen as follows:

It is difficult to see the dimensions of the wound in the video, so I have enhanced the photo (please forgive me for my primitive enhancement work, but it does make clear the dimensions of the wound in McClelland's sketch):

Thus, it is clear that Dr. McClelland really was rubbing his thumb up and down the back of his head to indicate the location of the wound.

Interestingly, the sketch from McClelland's own hand is quite different than the BOH wound sketch in Josiah Thompson's book that is often attributed to McClelland, but it still clearly depicts the wound as being in the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of JFK's head.

Also interesting is the resemblance between that drawing and James Jenkins's BOH wound drawing on a skull model (Speer will be flipping out on this again, but I'll have something posted soon that debunks his take on Jenkins's earliest representations as to the nature of that wound):

 

Edited January 11 by Keven Hofeling

[Tom Gram]

11 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

There are additional grounds to conclude that Dr. McClelland is delineating the back-of-the-head wound with his thumb in this clip rather than his outstretched fingers.

In the same episode of TMWKK, Dr. McClelland sketched the back of the head wound, and that segment can be seen as follows:

It is difficult to see the dimensions of the wound in the video, so I have enhanced the photo (please forgive me for my primitive enhancement work, but it does make clear the dimensions of the wound in McClelland's sketch):

Thus, it is clear that Dr. McClelland really was rubbing his thumb up and down the back of his head to indicate the location of the wound.

Interestingly, the sketch from McClelland's own hand is quite different than the BOH wound sketch in Josiah Thompson's book that is often attributed to McClelland, but it still clearly depicts the wound as being in the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of JFK's head.

Also interesting is the resemblance between that drawing and James Jenkins's BOH wound drawing on a skull model (Speer will be flipping out on this again, but I'll have something posted soon that debunks his take on Jenkins's earliest representations as to the nature of that wound):

 

Call me crazy, but that “gash” drawing by McClelland for TMWKK looks a heck of a lot like the “top of head” autopsy photo, IMO.

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=5162&fullsize=1

The photo appears to show a large piece of scalp flipped over to the left exposing a strip of missing skull on the top-back of the head. To the right of the area exposed by the left-flipped scalp flap appears to be a deep gash extending from around the point of the ear to the back of the head. 

The BOH photo shows much of the same area of JFK’s head, so it’s clear that the scalp flap(s) are closed up in that photo. 

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=5168&fullsize=1

McClelland’s “gash” extends well into the occipital bone, which is not visible in the TOH photo, but the gash in the photo does appear to extend well behind the ear. Basically, McClelland’s drawing seems to me like a reasonably accurate representation of the photo, considering that it’s 2D and that McClelland saw JFK on a table decades earlier, etc.

Photo interpretation is not exactly my area of expertise, but I’ve always wondered why the TOH photo is less-frequently discussed than the other autopsy photos. It shows heavy damage to the rear-right of JFK’s head, which minus the cerebellum references seems reasonably compatible with the observations at Parkland. 

EDIT: McClelland’s drawing of an elongated gash is also a lot more suggestive of a tangential “gutter” wound than a blow-out exit from a frontal shot. 

Edited January 5 by Tom Gram

[Michael Griffith]

Clint Hill saw the wound up-close for several minutes while he rode on the back of the limo on the way to Parkland, saw the wound again at Parkland, and saw the wound again at Bethesda. In his 11/29/63 report, he said there was a large wound in the right-rear part of the head.

The Parkland nurse who cleaned the head and packed the head wound with gauze to prepare the body for placement in the casket, Diana Bowron, and the supervising nurse who watched the cleaning and wrapping of the body, Doris Nelson, said the large wound was in the back of the head.

The funeral home worker who held JFK's head in his hands while he helped put the body in the casket, Aubrey Rike, said he could feel a large, jagged wound in the back of the head. 

Several of the Parkland doctors specified in their first reports that JFK had a large right-occipital-parietal wound, and some of them even specified that they could see cerebellum extruding from the wound. The cerebellum is unique in appearance compared to other parts of the brain, and the cerebellum is located low in the rear area of the brain. For example:

Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon:

          Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. . . .

          There was a large wound in the right occipital-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. . . .  There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Summary report of Dr. Kemp Clark, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

Dr. Malcolm Perry:

          A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck, in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted. (Treatment report of Dr. Malcolm Perry, 11/22/63, p. 1, CE 392)

Dr. Marion T. Jenkins:

          There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), 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. (Statement of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, 11/22/63, p. 2, CE 392)

Tom Robinson, one of the morticians at the autopsy, said there was an orange-sized hole in the back of the head. 

Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, told the HSCA that there was a large wound in the back of the head and that one of the late-arriving skull fragments was occipital bone. When Dr. Mantik spoke with Dr. Ebersole, Dr. Ebersole repeated his statement that there was a sizable hole in the back of the head. 

Dr. Robert Karnei, one of the doctors who attended the autopsy, said there was a large hole in the back of the head.

Edward Reed, an x-ray technician at the autopsy, told the HSCA that there was a large wound "located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region."

General Godfrey McHugh, one of Kennedy's top aides, attended the autopsy. He got a good look at JFK's head wounds. During a recorded interview, McHugh placed the large defect in the back of the head. When asked by to define what he meant by "back of the head," McHugh replied, "The portion that is in the back of the head, when you're lying down in the bathtub, you hit the back of the head."

Newsman Roy Stamps saw Kennedy's body in the limousine at Parkland shortly before it was taken inside. He said "the back of his head was gone." 

And on and on we could go.

 

Edited January 5 by Michael Griffith

[Joe Bauer]

57 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Clint Hill saw the wound up-close for several minutes while he rode on the back of the limo on the way to Parkland, saw the wound again at Parkland, and saw the wound again at Bethesda. In his 11/29/63 report, he said there was a large wound in the right-rear part of the head.

The Parkland nurse who cleaned the head and packed the head wound with gauze to prepare the body for placement in the casket, Diana Bowron, and the supervising nurse who watched the cleaning and wrapping of the body, Doris Nelson, said the large wound was in the back of the head.

The funeral home worker who held JFK's head in his hands while he helped put the body in the casket, Aubrey Rike, said he could feel a large, jagged wound in the back of the head. 

Several of the Parkland doctors specified in their first reports that JFK had a large right-occipital-parietal wound, and some of them even specified that they could see cerebellum extruding from the wound. The cerebellum is unique in appearance compared to other parts of the brain, and the cerebellum is located low in the rear area of the brain. For example:

Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon:

          Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. . . .

          There was a large wound in the right occipital-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. . . .  There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Summary report of Dr. Kemp Clark, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

Dr. Malcolm Perry:

          A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck, in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted. (Treatment report of Dr. Malcolm Perry, 11/22/63, p. 1, CE 392)

Dr. Marion T. Jenkins:

          There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), 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. (Statement of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, 11/22/63, p. 2, CE 392)

Tom Robinson, one of the morticians at the autopsy, said there was an orange-sized hole in the back of the head. 

Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, told the HSCA that there was a large wound in the back of the head and that one of the late-arriving skull fragments was occipital bone. When Dr. Mantik spoke with Dr. Ebersole, Dr. Ebersole repeated his statement that there was a sizable hole in the back of the head. 

Dr. Robert Karnei, one of the doctors who attended the autopsy, said there was a large hole in the back of the head.

Edward Reed, an x-ray technician at the autopsy, told the HSCA that there was a large wound "located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region."

General Godfrey McHugh, one of Kennedy's top aides, attended the autopsy. He got a good look at JFK's head wounds. During a recorded interview, McHugh placed the large defect in the back of the head. When asked by to define what he meant by "back of the head," McHugh replied, "The portion that is in the back of the head, when you're lying down in the bathtub, you hit the back of the head."

Newsman Roy Stamps saw Kennedy's body in the limousine at Parkland shortly before it was taken inside. He said "the back of his head was gone." 

And on and on we could go.

 

Simply too much large hole in the right back part of the skull eye-witness corroboration to keep trying to frame that reality as false.

I appreciated Bethesda naval corpsman's James Jenkin's later life interviews and sharing his recollections of what he personally saw during the autopsy regards JFK's body and the procedures used in performing that task.

Yet, I felt there were enough contradictions in his account that I just didn't give it a full vote of confidence. Most of it I did feel was accurate.

His fellow autopsy attendant corpsman Paul O'Conner had a quite different take on what he observed regards JFK's skull wounds, missing brain tissue, and even the brain removal procedure used that evening.

A procedure which was a specialty of O'Conner, not Jenkins.

Jenkins did state he felt LBJ  had something to do with the JFKA.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

His fellow autopsy attendant corpsman Paul O'Conner had a quite different take on what he observed regards JFK's skull wounds, missing brain tissue, and even the brain removal procedure used that evening.

 

Joe,

There's a reason different technicians saw things differently. It's because they were each brought into and taken out of the autopsy room at different times. So no one of them saw the full autopsy.

In addition to that, Kennedy's body was brought into the autopsy room twice... first time in a plain military casket, and the second time in the fancy bronze one. Some of the techs saw the body arrive in the first casket, and others saw him arrive in the second casket. Yet they all thought that what they saw was Kennedy's one-and-only arrival.

Between the two different casket arrivals, secret surgery was performed on Kennedy's head. Which, of course, added to what each tech saw differently.

The bottom line is that different people saw two (or more) different sets of facts.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Joe,

There's a reason different technicians saw things differently. It's because they were each brought into and taken out of the autopsy room at different times. So no one of them saw the full autopsy.

In addition to that, Kennedy's body was brought into the autopsy room twice... first time in a plain military casket, and the second time in the fancy bronze one. Some of the techs saw the body arrive in the first casket, and others saw him arrive in the second casket. Yet they all thought that what they saw was Kennedy's one-and-only arrival.

Between the two different casket arrivals, secret surgery was performed on Kennedy's head. Which, of course, added to what each tech saw differently.

The bottom line is that different people saw two (or more) different sets of facts.

 

While I've read theories in which two caskets were brought in the back, I don't think these theories hold that both caskets held JFK's body. So I think you've got a fresh idea. (With apologies to Doug Horne if he came up with this first.)

Like all fresh ideas, it needs to pass a few hurdles, however. 

If the body was indeed brought in in one casket and then another, then it would have to have been taken out in between. 

Well, any witnesses to this removal?

Any idea as to who performed this removal? 

And similarly, are there any witnesses to the transfer of JFK's body from one casket to the other?

Any idea as to who performed this transfer?

Any idea as to why this transfer was performed? 

It appears on the surface that you have resolved conflicting recollections by claiming they both happened, and that some mysterious "they" orchestrated it so that those involved had no idea they were living in alternate realities. 

The ARRB's Jeremy Gunn stepped aside from the research community after interviewing the medical witnesses, and realizing their memories  just weren't reliable. He cited one doctor's insistence Jackie was wearing white on the day of the assassination as an example. 

So, why should we believe inconsistent recollections among humans of events 30, 40, 50, 60 years before, is abnormal?

Why create a "they" when it is more probably "us"? 

[Michael Crane]

It's hard to convince the public of an entry wound in back of the head when it appears that he got hit by something the size of a rocket propelled grenade.

 

 

That's why we have a black blob on the Zapruder film an not a single legitimate back of the head photo or x-ray.

Edited January 5 by Michael Crane

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

While I've read theories in which two caskets were brought in the back, I don't think these theories hold that both caskets held JFK's body. So I think you've got a fresh idea. (With apologies to Doug Horne if he came up with this first.)

Like all fresh ideas, it needs to pass a few hurdles, however. 

If the body was indeed brought in in one casket and then another, then it would have to have been taken out in between. 

Well, any witnesses to this removal?

Any idea as to who performed this removal? 

And similarly, are there any witnesses to the transfer of JFK's body from one casket to the other?

Any idea as to who performed this transfer?

Any idea as to why this transfer was performed? 

It appears on the surface that you have resolved conflicting recollections by claiming they both happened, and that some mysterious "they" orchestrated it so that those involved had no idea they were living in alternate realities. 

The ARRB's Jeremy Gunn stepped aside from the research community after interviewing the medical witnesses, and realizing their memories  just weren't reliable. He cited one doctor's insistence Jackie was wearing white on the day of the assassination as an example. 

So, why should we believe inconsistent recollections among humans of events 30, 40, 50, 60 years before, is abnormal?

Why create a "they" when it is more probably "us"? 

 

This is a Lifton/Horne theory that I -- after looking at the witness statements -- agree with.  I am not an expert on it and have forgotten who saw what, so I cannot defend it myself. Horne certainly could. And you can read what he has written on it if you want.

As I said, the body was brought in twice. There are corroborating witnesses to both entries, so there is no question that that happened.

The CASKET was actually brought in THREE times, and there were witnesses to all three entries. The men who carried the caskets in each time were different! As I recall, the military casket was brought in by the men-in-dark-suits who delivered it (at 6:30 PM). The decorative bronze casket was brought in by some of the techs and some other guys, Secret Service I believe (at something like 7:30 PM). The casket had to have been empty because the body was already inside the autopsy room at the time. But those carrying the casket thought the body was in it. The casket was left in the ante-room, and none of its pallbearers saw it being opened.

That casket had to have been secretly removed, including the body, because the third entry DID have witnesses who saw it being opened (at a little before 8:00 PM IIRC). This time the Honor Guard brought it in.

You likely would disagree with Lifton and Horne on this. But you would lose a debate with Horne. He knows all the testimony, and with help from Lifton's theory was able to reconcile all the conflicting, but corroborated, statements.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So, why should we believe inconsistent recollections among humans of events 30, 40, 50, 60 years before, is abnormal?

 

Lifton documented most the important statements well before the 1981 publishing date of his book, Best Evidence.

It would be beneficial to you if you would read and at least attempt to understand the works of others, rather than criticize them off-the-cuff. This is CT 101 stuff.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It would be beneficial to you if you would read and at least attempt to understand the works of others, rather than criticize them off-the-cuff. This is CT 101 stuff.

And it would be beneficial for you to stop implying that people haven't read "the works of others" when you personally have no clue whatsoever what anybody here has done.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It would be beneficial to you [Pat] if you would read and at least attempt to understand the works of others, rather than criticize them off-the-cuff. This is CT 101 stuff.

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

And it would be beneficial for you to stop implying that people haven't read "the works of others" when you personally have no clue whatsoever what anybody here has done.

 

It would be beneficial for you to stop and think before posting one of your pointless retorts.

Had Pat read Best Evidence and paid attention to it, then he'd know that the "two casket/body entries" theory was Lifton's, not mine. And he'd know that the witness statements for it came ~15 years after the event, and not "30, 40, 50, 60 years."