The Back of Head Wound as Sketched by Dr. McClelland in TMWKK (1988):

[Keven Hofeling]

Parkland Doctor Robert McClelland sketches JFK back of head wound on TMWKK (1988):

 

 

Edited January 23 by Keven Hofeling

[Micah Mileto]

Is it just my own biases, or is the age of BOH-wound broke? Or course, that doesn't necessarily mean the end of criticism of the medical evidence - on the contrary, I'm currently creeping up on 600 pages for a project on wounds that aren't the large head wound. And besides those issues, I've previously talked about the chest tubes, the witness evidence for neck organs being removed at the autopsy, and the feigned ignorance of the throat wound during the autopsy. Maybe the temple wounds and torso wounds are the new "woke". So maybe those issues cannot be proven scientifically - the lack of decent explanation for the witness evidence is enough to make a probably-permanent stain on history. There's already a lot of witness evidence on extra weapons, bullet holes, shells, slugs, and other evidence at the scene which does not fit the official story.

Edited January 23 by Micah Mileto

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Is it just my own biases, or is the age of BOH-wound broke? Or course, that doesn't necessarily mean the end of criticism of the medical evidence - on the contrary, I'm currently creeping up on 600 pages for a project on wounds that aren't the large head wound. And besides those issues, I've previously talked about the chest tubes, the witness evidence for neck organs being removed at the autopsy, and the feigned ignorance of the throat wound during the autopsy. Maybe the temple wounds and torso wounds are the new "woke". So maybe those issues cannot be proven scientifically - the lack of decent explanation for the witness evidence is enough to make a probably-permanent stain on history. There's already a lot of witness evidence on extra weapons, bullet holes, shells, slugs, and other evidence at the scene which does not fit the official story.

To me it's like watching a replay of a baseball game over and over. 

The replay shows the game winning home run to have been a foul ball. A little research proves the umpire was actually getting paid by the winning team. The whole thing stinks.

But instead of dealing with that, those equally pissed off keep yelling that the replay is obviously a fake, because the color isn't right, or the game winning home run was hit to right field when some witnesses hours, months, and years later said it was left field, etc. 

I'm like "IT WAS A FOUL BALL!" But those equally pissed off just ignore this--what I see as the most important fact--and repeat "But what about that ball boy who said the homer flew out into left field?" To which I say "Look at the replay! It was right field!" To which they respond "Exactly! So we know the footage is fake! It's all a GIANT conspiracy!" To which I respond "Yes, it was a conspiracy, but it wasn't remotely necessary to fake the footage. All they needed to do was have some umpires and some replay officials who were in the bag for the winning team! Look at the replay!" To which they respond "The replay is a fake!! There was a secret CIA lab in the parking lot that altered the footage within minutes and gave it back to the network for broadcast to the country!" 

[Keven Hofeling]

56 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

To me it's like watching a replay of a baseball game over and over. 

The replay shows the game winning home run to have been a foul ball. A little research proves the umpire was actually getting paid by the winning team. The whole thing stinks.

But instead of dealing with that, those equally pissed off keep yelling that the replay is obviously a fake, because the color isn't right, or the game winning home run was hit to right field when some witnesses hours, months, and years later said it was left field, etc. 

I'm like "IT WAS A FOUL BALL!" But those equally pissed off just ignore this--what I see as the most important fact--and repeat "But what about that ball boy who said the homer flew out into left field?" To which I say "Look at the replay! It was right field!" To which they respond "Exactly! So we know the footage is fake! It's all a GIANT conspiracy!" To which I respond "Yes, it was a conspiracy, but it wasn't remotely necessary to fake the footage. All they needed to do was have some umpires and some replay officials who were in the bag for the winning team! Look at the replay!" To which they respond "The replay is a fake!! There was a secret CIA lab in the parking lot that altered the footage within minutes and gave it back to the network for broadcast to the country!" 

You write as if you are so certain of this, yet you have built your project upon misrepresentations and untruths, such as the following, and it is collapsing like a house of cards under minimal scrutiny. Just exactly why do you think that is, Mr. @Pat Speer?

 

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:

 

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.

And before you cut and paste your diatribe against Jenkins, bear in mind that the following is his earliest representation of the back of the head wound, made to the HSCA in 1977:

 For the following is the reality that no amount of hair splitting on your part can diminish...

 

Edited January 23 by Keven Hofeling

[Michael Griffith]

10 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Is it just my own biases, or is the age of BOH-wound broke? Or course, that doesn't necessarily mean the end of criticism of the medical evidence - on the contrary, I'm currently creeping up on 600 pages for a project on wounds that aren't the large head wound. And besides those issues, I've previously talked about the chest tubes, the witness evidence for neck organs being removed at the autopsy, and the feigned ignorance of the throat wound during the autopsy. Maybe the temple wounds and torso wounds are the new "woke". So maybe those issues cannot be proven scientifically - the lack of decent explanation for the witness evidence is enough to make a probably-permanent stain on history. There's already a lot of witness evidence on extra weapons, bullet holes, shells, slugs, and other evidence at the scene which does not fit the official story.

Given the historic ARRB disclosures, coupled with the 11/22/63 Parkland medical reports, Clint Hill's 11/30/63 report, the Parkland doctors' and nurses' WC testimony, the Ben Bradlee interviews, the Harrison Livingstone interviews, the fact that Dr. Finck questioned the origin of the back-of-head photos in his HSCA testimony, the mutually corroborating optical density analyses of the skull x-rays, etc., I don't see why the "age of the BOH-wound is broken."

I reject the idea that Dr. McClelland fabricated his description of the large head wound in his WC testimony. He had no conceivable motive for doing so, and his description of a large right-rear head wound aligns closely with how most of the Dallas doctors and nurses described the wound in their WC testimony.

Dr. Charles Carrico

          The large skull and scalp wound had been previously observed and was inspected a little more closely. There seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. (6 H 3)

          The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura. (6 H 6)

Dr. Malcolm Perry

          I noted there was a large wound of the right posterior parietal area in the head exposing lacerated brain. There was blood and brain tissue on the cart. (6 H 9)

          Mr. Specter. What did you observe as to the President's head, specifically? 

          Dr. Perry. I saw no injuries other than the one which I noted to you, which was a large avulsive injury of the right occipitoparietal area. . . . (6 H 11)

Dr. William Kemp Clark (neurosurgeon)

          I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. (6 H 20)

          Mr. Specter. Dr. Clark, in the line of your specialty, could you comment as to the status of the President with respect to competency, had he been able to survive the head injuries which you have described and the total wound which he had?

          Dr. Clark. This, of course, is a question of tremendous importance. Just let me state that the loss of cerebellar tissue would probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes would have been of specific importance. This would have led to a visual field deficit, which would have interfered in a major way with his ability to read, not the interpretation of reading matter per se, but the acquisition of information from the printed page. (6 H 26)

Notice that Dr. Clark said that JFK lost tissue from the cerebellum, from the right occipital lobe, and from the right parietal lobe. This is not what we see in the alleged autopsy brain photos.

Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins

          Now, Dr. Clark had begun closed chest cardiac massage at this time and I was aware of the magnitude of the wound, because with each compression of the chest, there was a great rush of blood from the skull wound. Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound ; there was part of the brain tissue, broken fragments of the brain tissue on the drapes of the cart on which the President lay. (6 H 48)

Cerebellar tissue looks very different than any other brain tissue, and it is only located low in the brain behind the occiput. 

Dr. Ronald Coy Jones

          Mr. Specter. Will you describe as precisely as you can the nature of the head wound?

          Dr. Jones. There was large defect in the back side of the head as the Presi- dent lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood. (6 H 53-54)

          Mr. Specter. Dr. Jones, did you have any speculative thought as to account- ing for the point of wounds which you observed on the President, as you thought about it when you were treating the President that day, or shortly thereafter? 

          Dr. Jones. With no history as to the number of times that the President had been shot or knowing the direction from which he had been shot, and seeing the wound in the midline of the neck, and what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull, the only speculation that I could have as far as to how this could occur with a single wound would be that it would enter the anterior neck and possibly strike a vertebral body and then change its course and exit in the region of the posterior portion of the head. (6 H 56)

Dr. Gene Akin

          The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding. (6 H 65)

          Mr. Specter. Did you have any opinion as to the direction that the bullet hit his head?

          Dr. Akin. I assume that the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head, but I didn't have any hard and fast opinions about that either. (6 H 67)

Dr. Paul Peters

          Mr. Specter. What did you observe as to the nature of the President's wound?

          Dr. Peters. Well, as I mentioned, the neck wound had already been interfered with by the tracheotomy at the time I got there, but I noticed the head wound, and as I remember—I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. 

          Mr. Specter. What did you notice in the occiput? 

          Dr. Peters. It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area. (6 H 71)

Nurse Diana Bowron, who helped to clean JFK's head wound, packed the wound with gauze, and wrapped a sheet around the head to prepare the body for the casket:

          Mr. Specter. You saw the condition of his what?

          Miss Bowron. The back of his head. Mr. Specter. And what was that condition? 

          Miss Bowron. Well, it was very bad—you know.

          Mr. Specter. How many holes did you see? 

          Miss Bowron. 1 just saw one large hole. (6 H 136)

Nurse Patricia Hutton

          Just after JFK was wheeled into the ER, Nurse Patricia Hutton was asked to place a pressure dressing on the head wound because "Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head." But, she said, the pressure dressing was ineffective "because of the massive opening on the back of the head" (11/22/63 statement, Price Exhibit No. 21, p. 1).

Nurse Doris Nelson

          Nurse Doris Nelson was a supervising nurse at Parkland Hospital. She got a good look at JFK's head. In 1981, in a recorded interview, journalist Ben Bradlee asked her, "Did you get a good look at his head injuries?" Nelson said she got "a fairly good look. . . . When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head." Asked about the accuracy of the autopsy photographs that show the back of the head intact, she was incredulous, saying,

          "No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (LINK)

          Bradlee even had Nelson draw the wound on an artificial skull. She put the wound in the right-rear part of the skull. Then, Bradlee asked her if the autopsy photos showed the head wound that she saw, and she said "No." Bradlee then asked her specifically about the large wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos. She rejected it, saying, "There was a large hole, but it was right back there" [indicating the right-rear side of the head] (LINK).

Ignoring all this, WC apologists give precedence to the one and only time that Nurse Nelson demonstrated the wound as being only on the right side of the head and not at all on the back of the head, which she did when she was interviewed by a LIFE reporter two years after she had described and drawn the wound as being in the right-rear area of the head. The reporter asked her to show him where the wound was, and she put her hand only on the right side of the head. WC apologists of course accept this demonstration and reject her prolonged interview with Bradlee where she repeatedly said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head, drew the wound on an artificial skull, and expressly rejected the head wound shown in the autopsy photos.

Edited January 23 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

You write as if you are so certain of this, yet you have built your project upon misrepresentations and untruths, such as the following, and it is collapsing like a house of cards under minimal scrutiny. Just exactly why do you think that is, Mr. @Pat Speer?

 

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:

 

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.

And before you cut and paste your diatribe against Jenkins, bear in mind that the following is his earliest representation of the back of the head wound, made to the HSCA in 1977:

 For the following is the reality that no amount of hair splitting on your part can diminish...

 

I'm sorry, Keven, but your posts are insulting, not just to me, but to anyone who's studied the case. No matter what you would like to believe about McClelland, he was erratic as heck. Now, did he 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. 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.)

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."

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. 

So do the research, and cool it with the hate

[Keven Hofeling]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I'm sorry, Keven, but your posts are insulting, not just to me, but to anyone who's studied the case. No matter what you would like to believe about McClelland, he was erratic as heck. Now, did he 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. 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.)

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."

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. 

So do the research, and cool it with the hate

 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...

 

[Sandy Larsen]

 

From this video I get the impression that Dr. McClelland saw the jagged left-side of the skull wound, but wasn't sure how far to the right the right edge extended. Unlike the left side, he didn't spend any time at all drawing a jagged right side... his pen merely swept up and down lightly.

I believe that scalp on the right side covered the edge of the skull hole on the right side. So the hole in the skull could be considerably larger than what some of the witnesses drew.

 

[Michael Griffith]

Some of Pat Speer’s criticisms of Dr. McClelland are downright silly. For example, he actually argues that because McClelland used the term “of the left temple” instead of “to the left temple” in his 11/22/63 report, McClelland may have thought that the large head wound was near the right temple and that he had confused his right with his left because he was looking at Kennedy upside down. 

Pat also argues that since McClelland did not specify the location of the “massive head and brain injury” in his 11/22 report, he therefore failed to indicate there was “any wound anywhere but on the left temple.” Now, come on—that is just ridiculous. A much more logical, sensible explanation is that McClelland described a frontal-bone entry wound because he believed it was an entry wound based on the fact that there was a large defect somewhere behind the frontal-bone entry wound.   

Pat pounces on the fact that a few weeks after the shooting, McClelland told journalist Richard Dudman that there was nothing about the head wound that suggested a shot from the front. 

But this was after McClelland had heard about the autopsy report. This was also after every major media outlet had been insisting since the day after the shooting, if not earlier, that all the shots had come from behind JFK, from the TSBD. 

By Pat’s own admission, when McClelland testified before the WC, he was publicly supporting the party line that the shots came from behind. Yet, he still said that the large head wound was in the right occipital-parietal part of the head and that some of the cerebellum had been blasted out: 

          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 half, 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. (6 H 33) 

If anything, the fact that during this same time period McClelland was publicly going along with the line that all the shots came from behind makes his WC testimony all the more compelling. 

Pat nitpicks over the fact that McClelland was not absolutely perfectly consistent in how he drew or demonstrated the large head wound. This is unserious nitpicking. McClelland always drew or demonstrated the wound as being clearly behind the right ear, even though his placements were not identical. He never drew or demonstrated a wound that was directly above the right ear and that did not include part of the back of the head. 

Pat makes the odd claim that Clint Hill’s description of the large head wound is “vague” and could refer to the area above the right ear! Hill, who saw the wound up close for several minutes, said the wound was in “the right-rear portion of the skull.” How could anyone infer that this could refer to a wound above the right ear? Again, come on. This is silly. The area above the right ear is not in the “right-rear portion of the skull.” It is in the middle of the side of the head, several inches from what anyone would describe as the “rear” part of the skull. 

Pat is so ideologically committed to denying the large back-of-head wound that he can’t even bring himself to acknowledge the clear meaning of Hill’s straightforward account. 

BTW, when Agent Hill demonstrated the location of the large head wound in a filmed interview in 2013, he put his hand on the right-rear part of his head, several inches behind his right ear (LINK; see also the screencap below). 

Jackie Kennedy, who held JFK’s head in her hands on the way to Parkland Hospital, told the WC that on the ride to Parkland she was trying to hold down the hair and skull on the back of her husband’s head: 

          I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. (5 H 180, declassified version—this portion of her testimony was omitted from the published version, but it was “declassified” in 1972)

 

Edited January 24 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

15 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Some of Pat Speer’s criticisms of Dr. McClelland are downright silly. For example, he actually argues that because McClelland used the term “of the left temple” instead of “to the left temple” in his 11/22/63 report, McClelland may have thought that the large head wound was near the right temple and that he had confused his right with his left because he was looking at Kennedy upside down. 

Pat also argues that since McClelland did not specify the location of the “massive head and brain injury” in his 11/22 report, he therefore failed to indicate there was “any wound anywhere but on the left temple.” Now, come on—that is just ridiculous. A much more logical, sensible explanation is that McClelland described a frontal-bone entry wound because he believed it was an entry wound based on the fact that there was a large defect somewhere behind the frontal-bone entry wound.   

Pat pounces on the fact that a few weeks after the shooting, McClelland told journalist Richard Dudman that there was nothing about the head wound that suggested a shot from the front. 

But this was after McClelland had heard about the autopsy report. This was also after every major media outlet had been insisting since the day after the shooting, if not earlier, that all the shots had come from behind JFK, from the TSBD. 

By Pat’s own admission, when McClelland testified before the WC, he was publicly supporting the party line that the shots came from behind. Yet, he still said that the large head wound was in the right occipital-parietal part of the head and that some of the cerebellum had been blasted out: 

          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 half, 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. (6 H 33) 

If anything, the fact that during this same time period McClelland was publicly going along with the line that all the shots came from behind makes his WC testimony all the more compelling. 

Pat nitpicks over the fact that McClelland was not absolutely perfectly consistent in how he drew or demonstrated the large head wound. This is unserious nitpicking. McClelland always drew or demonstrated the wound as being clearly behind the right ear, even though his placements were not identical. He never drew or demonstrated a wound that was directly above the right ear and that did not include part of the back of the head. 

Pat makes the odd claim that Clint Hill’s description of the large head wound is “vague” and could refer to the area above the right ear! Hill, who saw the wound up close for several minutes, said the wound was in “the right-rear portion of the skull.” How could anyone infer that this could refer to a wound above the right ear? Again, come on. This is silly. The area above the right ear is not in the “right-rear portion of the skull.” It is in the middle of the side of the head, several inches from what anyone would describe as the “rear” part of the skull. 

Pat is so ideologically committed to denying the large back-of-head wound that he can’t even bring himself to acknowledge the clear meaning of Hill’s straightforward account. 

BTW, when Agent Hill demonstrated the location of the large head wound in a filmed interview in 2013, he put his hand on the right-rear part of his head, several inches behind his right ear (LINK; see also the screencap below). 

Jackie Kennedy, who held JFK’s head in her hands on the way to Parkland Hospital, told the WC that on the ride to Parkland she was trying to hold down the hair and skull on the back of her husband’s head: 

          I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. (5 H 180, declassified version—this portion of her testimony was omitted from the published version, but it was “declassified” in 1972)

 

I'm sorry, but I'm not the one who's silly. Clint Hill has always placed the wound above and behind his ear when asked. He's done this numerous times. When I first brought this to the attention of this forum, and the research community in general, the response was outrage. Not with me. But with Hill. People like Fetzer and Lifton thought his placing the wound in this location was a betrayal--a sell-out. It seems that no one quite remembers how things were, but when I first started discussing this stuff people were insistent that the large wound was primarily occipital bone, and was not on the side of the head or top of the head above the ear. They saw any witness claiming otherwise as a threat, for some dumb reason. In any event, Hill has long pointed out a wound from above the ear and back, which is consistent with his earliest statements, and reasonably consistent with the wound seen in the autopsy photos. 

P.S. The image presented above does not support Michael's contention Hill is pointing out a location behind his right ear, let alone one inches behind his right ear. Hill's thumb is directly behind his ear and his pinky is above the ear, not inches behind.

Edited January 25 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

P.S. The image presented above does not support Michael's contention Hill is pointing out a location behind his right ear, let alone one inches behind his right ear. Hill's thumb is directly behind his ear and his pinky is above the ear, not inches behind.

Holy cow. If you can't admit that the 2013 photo shows Hill putting his hand over the right parietal-occipital area, there's no point in discussing the issue with you. Hill's thumb is not "directly behind his ear"--that's why you can't see the end of this thumb. His thumb is clearly at least 1 inch behind his ear. I can't understand how you can look at that photo and deny that his hand is over the right parietal-occipital part of the head.

Yes, at other times, Hill placed the wound farther forward, as you show in your graphic. But your graphic also shows that Hill markedly contradicted himself in the three photos in your graphic.

In the top-left photo, he has his hand nowhere near the official location of the exit wound--rather, most of his hand is visibly behind his ear and well below the official location. In the top-right photo, his hand is only slightly more forward than it is in the top-left photo, and it is still well below the official location. In contrast, in the bottom photo, his hand is much higher and farther forward--it is directly above the ear. 

You are so ideologically committed to denying the back-of-head wound that you won't acknowledge the plain, clear meaning of Hill's 11/30/63 description of the wound. Even a child would not read "right-rear" as including the area directly above the right ear. No one uses the term "right-rear" like that. Even a child understands that the back of the head is not the side of the head. Not even a child would describe the wound seen in the autopsy photos as being anywhere near the "back" or "rear" of the head. A wound above the right ear is on the side of the head, not the back. 

Jackie Kennedy's declassified testimony to the WC supports Hill's 11/30/63 description: 

          I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. (5 H 180, declassified version—this portion of her testimony was omitted from the published version, but it was “declassified” in 1972)

The only way to read this is that she was saying that she was trying to hold down the hair and skull on the back of her husband’s head. "From the back" means, well, from the back. "From the back" she "could see" the wound. "From the back" she was "trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." She saw nothing "from the front," but "from the back" she could see damage and was trying to hold "his hair on, and his skull on" from the back.

Edited January 25 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

47 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Holy cow. If you can't admit that the 2013 photo shows Hill putting his hand over the right parietal-occipital area, there's no point in discussing the issue with you. Hill's thumb is not "directly behind his ear"--that's why you can't see the end of this thumb. His thumb is clearly at least 1 inch behind his ear. I can't understand how you can look at that photo and deny that his hand is over the right parietal-occipital part of the head.

Yes, at other times, Hill placed the wound farther forward, as you show in your graphic. But your graphic also shows that Hill markedly contradicted himself in the three photos in your graphic.

In the top-left photo, he has his hand nowhere near the official location of the exit wound--rather, most of his hand is visibly behind his ear and well below the official location. In the top-right photo, his hand is only slightly more forward than it is in the top-left photo, and it is still well below the official location. In contrast, in the bottom photo, his hand is much higher and farther forward--it is directly above the ear. 

You are so ideologically committed to denying the back-of-head wound that you won't acknowledge the plain, clear meaning of Hill's 11/30/63 description of the wound. Even a child would not read "right-rear" as including the area directly above the right ear. No one uses the term "right-rear" like that. Even a child understands that the back of the head is not the side of the head. Not even a child would describe the wound seen in the autopsy photos as being anywhere near the "back" or "rear" of the head. A wound above the right ear is on the side of the head, not the back. 

Jackie Kennedy's declassified testimony to the WC supports Hill's 11/30/63 description: 

          I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. (5 H 180, declassified version—this portion of her testimony was omitted from the published version, but it was “declassified” in 1972)

The only way to read this is that she was saying that she was trying to hold down the hair and skull on the back of her husband’s head. "From the back" means, well, from the back. "From the back" she "could see" the wound. "From the back" she was "trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." She saw nothing "from the front," but "from the back" she could see damage and was trying to hold "his hair on, and his skull on" from the back.

Fun and games. Fun and games. Let's pretend Hill is a member of the back of the head club...when he has been vilified for more than a decade for not being a member of the back of the head club. Fun and games. Fun and games. 

They're at no pretending with this one, Michael. Hill was not a back of the head witness...at least not in this century.

 

 

Edited January 25 by Pat Speer

[Denny Zartman]

8 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Fun and games. Fun and games. Let's pretend Hill is a member of the back of the head club...when he has been vilified for more than a decade for not being a member of the back of the head club. Fun and games. Fun and games. 

They're at no pretending with this one, Michael. Hill was not a back of the head witness.

 

 

I so wish I could put you on ignore.

[Pat Speer]

Just now, Denny Zartman said:

I so wish I could put you on ignore.

Why? So you can pretend Hill, if he ever did believe the far back of the head was blown out, continues to claim as much? When he has specified for the last 15 years that the wound was at the top of the head, above the ear?

Ignorance is bliss, I guess. 

[David Von Pein]

.......

Edited January 25 by David Von Pein