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

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, it has long seemed obvious that the flap of scalp by the ear was put back in place by Jackie, and held in place by gravity, when JFK was viewed at Parkland. So that would minimize the appearance of the wound in front of the ear shown in the Z-film. When the back of the head photos were morphed together, for what's worse, it became apparent that the top of the back of the head was shattered, and would flap open should JFK be lying on his back. Well, he was not only lying on his back, but placed into the Trendelenburg position, with his feet in the air. When this was done, it follows, whatever gobs of brain were loose inside he skull, would slide to the back, and slip from the skull. 

Well, geez, this very thing was described by McClelland. He thought it was cerebellum, but good word has it that macerated brain takes the appearance of cerebellum. So... It's not so mysterious after all...

 

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Hello Joe,

Let's try going over some things ok?....ok

It is a known FACT that nurse Bowron who literally washed JFK's hair had NO time manipulate any evidence,that's the bottom line.Along with other Parkland personnel observations.

Any other observations/evidence including the Zapruder film had time AFTER Parkland to be altered and or munipulated.

I know which one I'm going with.

 

Well, what about the Newmans, and Zapruder? Are you with Lifton on this? Do you believe their recollections should be ignored because they weren't doctors? Because only doctors can tell the location of a hole on someone's head? 

Or should we ignore them because they only saw the wound for a few seconds? 

And, if so, shouldn't we then go through and throw out the recollections of the majority of the Parkland witnesses, who only saw the President's wounds for a few seconds? I mean, the Newmans and Zapruder made their statements within minutes of the shooting. Wouldn't they be more accurate than the decades-later recollections of people who'd been exposed to all sorts of theories, including that the back of the head was blown out by a shot from the front? I mean, much has been made of the possibility some changed their recollections to match the official theory. But what about the possibility some have changed their recollections to match the theory of those tracking them down decades later? 

Let's see...

"Well, hello Mrs. blah blah.... I see that you were present in the emergency room on November 22, 1963. Do you remember the location of the President's large head wound? Because well, frankly, a lot of the other witnesses have told me the wound was on the ack of the head, basically all of the witnesses. Is that what you saw as well."

"Yes, I suppose so. I remember that there was a lot of blood and even some brain tissue in his hair. It was a gruesome sight. And that his handsome face was intact. So, yeah, the wound was on the back of his head, and not his face. I hope that this helps."   

Edited January 6 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

Sorry for the delay Pat.I'm not on this site as much as others.

Yes,I will dismiss them.Bowron was up close and had longer looks,but I also include others people testimony that corroborates nurse Bowron.There is entirely too much evidence at Parkland not to convince me.

All that dooky that happened after Parkland only complicates matters.

Paul O'Connor,James Jenkins & Richard Lipsey were three witnesses (along with Humes) that seen JFK's head first from when the towels were removed from his head.And you know as good as I,what O'Connor said about the condition of the head.

Too many witnesses seen JFK head wound at different times.That is why there is so much discrepancy between them.

Edited January 6 by Michael Crane

[Sandy Larsen]

The bottom line is this:

1. The Dealey Plaza witnesses who viewed the wounding from the side aren't very good witnesses because they weren't prepared to view it, couldn't study it, and what they did see happened in the blink of an eye.
2. The Bethesda witnesses aren't very good witnesses because of the incisions surreptitiously made in the scalp to get the bullets out. Different witnesses saw different things, and so their reports aren't consistent with one another.
3. The Parkland witnesses are the best because they were able to observe the head up close and could study the wound. NONE OF THEM DESCRIBED A LARGE WOUND ON THE TOP OF THE HEAD. And nearly all of them -- around twenty! -- described a wound on the back of the head.
4. Any Parkland witness who changed their mind later on did so because they learned that their early descriptions were inconsistent with the back-of-head autopsy photos, and they didn't want to look like fools. So they went along with the charade.

 

The blowout wound was most definitely on the back of the head. The numerous Parkland doctors' and nurses' drawings confirm this. And this proves that the back-of-head autopsy photos are fraudulent.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The blowout wound was most definitely on the back of the head. The numerous Parkland doctors' and nurses' drawings confirm this. And this proves that the back-of-head autopsy photos are fraudulent.

 

The only reason we are having this debate is because a single prominent forum member -- Pat Speer -- has an irrational, preconceived, notion that photographic evidence could not have been altered as part of the coverup.

Pat should be denounced for his ongoing massive use of cherry picking and misrepresentation in arguing his easily-demonstrable, wrong conclusion regarding the blowout wound. Not only because what he's doing is wrong, but because it confuses newbies. And newbies are the future of our cause.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The only reason we are having this debate is because a single prominent forum member -- Pat Speer -- has an irrational, preconceived, notion that photographic evidence could not have been altered as part of the coverup.

Pat should be denounced for his ongoing massive use of cherry picking and misrepresentation in arguing his easily-demonstrable, wrong conclusion regarding the blowout wound. Not only because what he's doing is wrong, but because it confuses newbies. And newbies are the future of our cause.

A laughable post in multiple ways, not least of which is the absurd attempt to paint Pat as the only researcher who rejects the massive and completely unproven photo fakery you allege. Of all the forum members who should be denounced, you are far and away at the top of the list.

[Sandy Larsen]

26 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

A laughable post in multiple ways, not least of which is the absurd attempt to paint Pat as the only researcher who rejects the massive and completely unproven photo fakery you allege.

 

The proof of BOH photo fakery is simple... I did just that in the post prior to the one you quoted.

But I'm not at all surprised that you don't get it. Stand in line with the rest of the WC apologists.

 

BTW, I never suggested Pat was the only researcher who rejects photo fakery, as you allege. Go back and read it again. (Hint: "prominent forum member") Yet one more thing that eludes you.

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

the back-of-head autopsy photos are fraudulent.

There is a ZERO per cent chance of the autopsy photos being "fraudulent" / "fake" / "altered", as confirmed in 7 HSCA 41, which is a page of the House Select Committee's volumes that nearly 100% of CTers will either totally ignore or they'll pretend that the entire Photographic Panel of the HSCA was filled with either all l-i-a-r-s or an assortment of nothing but boneheads who didn't know what the hell they were talking about when they said none of the photos had been altered.

I wonder why so many conspiracy theorists on this planet think they know more about photo analysis and interpretation than the multiple photo experts who comprised the HSCA's Photographic Panel? That's a question I've never been able to answer.

 

Edited January 7 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

8 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

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.

You're all mixed up. I'm not suggesting McClelland is putting his hand on the SIDE of his head at all. Quite the contrary. He's definitely putting his hand over the BACK of his head (just as I said in my prior post).

You need to read THIS PAGE to see what a silly mixed-up fool I happen to think Dr. McClelland is/was with respect to this issue relating to the location of the large wound in JFK's head.

 

Edited January 7 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Sorry for the delay Pat.I'm not on this site as much as others.

Yes,I will dismiss them.Bowron was up close and had longer looks,but I also include others people testimony that corroborates nurse Bowron.There is entirely too much evidence at Parkland not to convince me.

All that dooky that happened after Parkland only complicates matters.

Paul O'Connor,James Jenkins & Richard Lipsey were three witnesses (along with Humes) that seen JFK's head first from when the towels were removed from his head.And you know as good as I,what O'Connor said about the condition of the head.

Too many witnesses seen JFK head wound at different times.That is why there is so much discrepancy between them.

Now you realize there's a divide, right? If you conclude a large head wound on the back of the head was seen at Bethesda, then you are simultaneously saying the body wasn't altered, right? 

P.S. O'Connor said the wound stretched from front to back and was clearly describing the wound as observed after the scalp was peeled aside and skull fell to the table. 

P.P.S. I spoke to Jenkins on multiple occasions and he steadfastly insisted that the back of the head was shattered but intact beneath the scalp. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

27 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Why do you think you know more about photo interpretation than the multiple photo experts who comprised the HSCA's Photographic Panel?

 

The HSCA was largely corrupt.

I trust the WC 26 Volumes more than anything that came out of the WC or HSCA, with a few exceptions. For example, the Lopez Report.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

On 1/4/2024 at 12:05 PM, Pat Speer said:

The primary reason you have the latitude to engage in this kind of propaganda is that the members of the Parkland trauma team had so much reverence for the fallen President that they didn't want to say that they had lifted his head to inspect the large avulsive exit wound.

But in 2013, Doctor Don Teal Curtis (a first year resident at Parkland Hospital when he assisted in the efforts to resuscitate Kennedy) violated the taboo and revealed the following about how the large back-of-the head-wound was identified by Dr. Kemp Clark lifting the President's head:

_______________

"...With another surgeon beginning a tracheotomy to open the president’s airway, Curtis went to the president’s leg to begin what he called a “cut-down” procedure.

He explained that the cut-down procedure was to insert a tube for the rapid insertion of fluids into the patient’s bloodstream to compensate for blood loss.

It was then that he noticed brain matter on the president’s pants leg. He added the comment that “brain matter is very easily recognizable.”

As he was beginning the cut-down procedure and another doctor was beginning the tracheotomy, a third doctor moved around to the president’s head and lifted it so he could examine the president for any wounds that were not visible from his position, lying on his back. As soon as the doctor lifted the president’ head, he said, “Stop resuscitation. This is not compatible with life.”

Curtis reported that each senior physician, and there were several in the room by then, looked at Kennedy’s head.

Curtis also looked, and he told the audience “the posterior part of his head was blown out.”

Curtis, who had become very familiar with entrance and exit wounds during his trauma room work at Parkland, said that there was no doubt in his mind that the exit wound on the president’s head was at the back...."

'PHYSICIAN DISCUSSES JFK ASSASSINATION'
JAMES BARRINGTON Canyon News staff | Nov. 9, 2013 https://www.myplainview.com/news/canyon/article/Physician-discusses-JFK-assassination-8419070.php

_______________

Dr. Robert McClelland in a note to researcher Vince Palamara wrote:

"I looked directly into the wound from a distance of about 18 inches for over 10 uninterrupted minutes and thus saw the wound better than any of the other medical witnesses ."

Dr. McClelland must have remained with the body of the President to inspect the wound further after the other physicians had given it a cursory glance, and he probably had the head turned to the left side to do so.

It's inconvenient facts like this which stand in the way of your mission that make it such a high priority for you to demonize and discredit Dr. McClelland, right?

Edited January 7 by Keven Hofeling

[David Von Pein]

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The HSCA was largely corrupt.

And yet they concluded there WAS a conspiracy.

So they were both CORRUPT and TRUTHFUL at the same time????

Doesn't that seem the slightest bit odd to you?

 

Edited January 7 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The bottom line is this:

1. The Dealey Plaza witnesses who viewed the wounding from the side aren't very good witnesses because they weren't prepared to view it, couldn't study it, and what they did see happened in the blink of an eye.
2. The Bethesda witnesses aren't very good witnesses because of the incisions surreptitiously made in the scalp to get the bullets out. Different witnesses saw different things, and so their reports aren't consistent with one another.
3. The Parkland witnesses are the best because they were able to observe the head up close and could study the wound. NONE OF THEM DESCRIBED A LARGE WOUND ON THE TOP OF THE HEAD. And nearly all of them -- around twenty! -- described a wound on the back of the head.
4. Any Parkland witness who changed their mind later on did so because they learned that their early descriptions were inconsistent with the back-of-head autopsy photos, and they didn't want to look like fools. So they went along with the charade.

 

The blowout wound was most definitely on the back of the head. The numerous Parkland doctors' and nurses' drawings confirm this. And this proves that the back-of-head autopsy photos are fraudulent.

 

So, the first people to see something are not to be trusted. 

And the last people to see something are not to be trusted. 

And the people viewing it in the middle are only to be trusted if they claim the films and photos of this thing are fake. 

This is not research, it's religion. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The HSCA was largely corrupt.

And yet they concluded there WAS a conspiracy.

So they were both CORRUPT and TRUTHFUL at the same time????

Brilliant.

 

The only thing indicating a conspiracy was, according to the HSCA, a sound that wasn't easily understood by the public and could explained away as an echo.

It didn't matter by that time if the government conceded a conspiracy. As long as it was a based on something as flimsy as as a sound recording. I wouldn't be surprised if they figured that the conspiracy conclusion would placate the WC critics.

It didn't.