Earliest Parkland medical staff statements re: large head wound location

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Denny,

Dr. McClelland has always said that the gaping wound was on the back of the head.

Here is what happened regarding McClelland's earliest statement and how Pat mischaracterizes it for his own purposes:

In McClelland's very first written statement, dated 11/22/63, to the best of my recollection he wrote that Kennedy died from a gunshot wound to the left temple. In the same paragraph he wrote that the gunshot resulted in a massive wound.

Where did this "left temple" business come from? When the Parkland doctors were working on Kennedy, McClelland entered the room and asked where the gunshot wound was. Dr. Jenkins mistakenly told him it was in the left temple. Of course, he was talking about where the bullet hit the head, and that is how McClelland took it. (BTW Jenkins later denied his mistake, but it is well documented.)

So anyway, Pat Speer comes along and reads McClelland's 11/22/63 statement. All he sees is "massive wound" and "temple" and decides, oh so that is where McClelland saw the gaping wound. Never mind that McClelland specified the wrong temple.

 

Pat Speer's conception of the large head wound:

 

Versus reality:

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Pat Speer's conception of the large head wound:

 

Versus reality:

 

 

LOL.

Although Tom Cruise would probably object to the use of this morbid metaphor.

One question I have for those who deny that the occipital skull blow out fracture was an exit wound.

Why did Jackie crawl back on the trunk of the limo after the fatal head shot?

And a related question.

Why did the Dealey Plaza crowd rush to the Grassy Knoll?

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Pat Speer's conception of the large head wound:

 

Versus reality:

 

 

 IF you really took from my thousand or so posts claiming the WC trajectory made no sense and that the Parkland doctors were correct when they said they believed the large head wound was a tangential  wound of both entrance and exit, that I believed the WC trajectory and was pushing this trajectory, then your reading comprehension is non-existent. 

[Keven Hofeling]

5 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

 IF you really took from my thousand or so posts claiming the WC trajectory made no sense and that the Parkland doctors were correct when they said they believed the large head wound was a tangential  wound of both entrance and exit, that I believed the WC trajectory and was pushing this trajectory, then your reading comprehension is non-existent. 

No, I just see behind the facade, that's all.

[Paul Bacon]

Analasis of shot trajectories, and, indeed, all our speculations in recent weeks are frought with problems.

Example:  A shot from the grassy knoll that entered the forehead above the right eye (or slightly above and in front of the right ear) and blew out the back, right side of JFK's head, would, nessessarily, mean his head was facing the grassy knoll.  In the "Z-film" it was not.

I've gone back and fourth, but, recently, I've been leaning toward a shot from the south knoll.  This too has issues.  If it were the case, how would Bobby Hargis be so forcefully hit with debris riding on the left side of the car?  How would JFK have been slammed back and to the left of the car?

Okay, maybe two bullets hit at virtually the same time--one from the south knoll and one from the north knoll.  Only one large exit wound?--maybe they both exited the same hole.

Maybe the original Z-film, before frame removal, showed Kennedy with his head turned toward the north knoll, making a shot from that location make more sense.

What about the three head shot scenario?  Remember, most of us speculate there's a bullet entry hole low, in the back of the head, and I think that the movement between Z-312 and Z-313 indicate that as a possibility (as well as Dan Rather's contention). 

Which of those three potential bullets, hit first?  Hit second?  Hit third?  Was Kennedy's head whipped around like a ballon in heavy wind?

My point is that we just don't know and perhaps we'll never know.  It's quite frustrating.

[Andrej Stancak]

I am not sure I ever posted my analysis of Mary Moorman photograph, suggesting the presence of a right parietal wound in Kennedy's head. As Mary Moorman took her famous picture around the Z-frame 315, the headwound should be visible in her picture offering a clear view of Kennedy's head. This analysis was undertaken as a part of my project to replicate the work of Tom Wilson who was the first to apply a subsurface photographic analysis to assassination pictures.

I had a high-resolution of the FBI version of Moorman's picture which comes from Tom Wilson's archive. I took a series of black-and-white pictures of Kennedy's head in a large-print of Mary Moorman's picture using an industrial near-infrared camera with individual frames taken at 30 Hz, under a 10 Hz stroboscopic illumination.

Here is a picture of my setup:  

  

In the next, I analysed the averaged picture (containing information from fames taken at multiple levels of illumination based on the phase of aperture opening and the strobe burst), and reconstructed the brightness distributions in the right posterior head area using ImageJ program.

Here is the result of the depth reconstruction scaled in colour with bluish colour representing the deepest layers in the object. The image appears to show a wound having two connected openings.

 

This area has been then mapped onto original Moorman photograph, with red-lined area representing the spot which seems to lack any information, possibly a hollow space. 

  

For comparison purposes, here are the results of Tom Wilson's analysis (upper panel) and my analysis (lower panel) of this area of President's head in Mary Moorman's picture:

 

In my humble opinion, these analyses tend to support the presence of a wound in the right posterior area of the head just fraction of a second after the last shot, justifying the statements of a number of medical staff members at Parkland hospital.

 

Edited August 28 by Andrej Stancak

[Greg Doudna]

Keven Hofeling, your Tom Cruse illustration which you titled "Pat Speer's conception of the large head wound" is wrong, that isn't what Pat Speer says. Pat Speer doesn't have any bullet enter at the autopsists' entrance wound which exits at his top of the head exit! He has the bullet entering at the lower ca EOP area exit the throat, for crying out loud. 

When Pat told you you misrepresented him, you say "No" (your word) and accuse him of being a CIA plant doing a "limited hangout". Like a repeated meme you want to accuse. This is not the first time you have posted that same meme, and undoubtedly will be followed by more unless there is moderator intervention.

"Snitch jacketing" is an old term from the '60s when an operative enters a movement and targets someone effective inside the group that the government agency wants taken out. The operative makes others in the group suspect the target of being an informant or government operative until the target is (wrongly and innocently, on that charge) suspected by others in the group of being a government plant and cast out of the group. Are you trying to "snitch jacket" Pat, Mr. Hofeling?

You appeared out of nowhere on this forum and from day one of your postings put thousands of hours, nonstop to the present day, into a single-minded agenda month after month after month to have Pat Speer not simply shown wrong on a particular argument where he may be vulnerable among his many, but his personal character smeared and discredited and destroyed, e.g. repeatedly saying you see through his "facade" as if he does not believe what he is saying, and posting memes implying he is a CIA operative doing a "limited hangout". 

In short, you represent Pat's bullet trajectory in a way that is flatly untrue which Pat's website argues against ... you know that is not true, anyone who reads Pat's website knows that ... and when Pat protests it is not a true representation you answer "no” (!)--instead of apologizing for the misrepresentation of another's position--as if you are doubling down on your misrepresentation or don't care.

Why don't you do the honorable thing and retract and apologize for your Tom Cruse misrepresentation of Pat and the gratuitous spy agency plant insinuation you are trying to make stick on Pat? 

 

On 8/17/2024 at 2:27 PM, Keven Hofeling said:

No, I just see behind the facade, that's all.

From the wikipedia article on "bad jacketing":

Bad-jacketing is a term for planting doubt on the authenticity of an individual's bona fides or identity. An example would be creating suspicion through spreading false rumors, manufacturing evidence, etc., that falsely portray someone in a community organization as an informant, or member of law enforcement, or guilty of malfeasance such as skimming organization funds.^[1]

Snitch-jacketing is a variant of bad-jacketing that specifically aims to present the target as an informer.^{[citation needed]}

History

Scholar Mark Anthony Neal writes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under J. Edgar Hoover used the technique against the Black Panther Party (BPP) and other Black Power organizations as part of its COINTELPRO operations.^[1] Neal writes that this technique was effective in isolating key individuals, forcing them out of the organization, and that its effectiveness was enhanced by the tendency of Black Power activists to divide among "rigid racial, ideological, and increasingly gendered" lines.^[1] The practice was notably used by the FBI informants to create a climate of suspicion within the Black Panther Party^[2]and American Indian Movement (AIM),^[3] which resulted in the murder of a number of AIM activists that had been subjected to bad-jacketing, including Pedro Bissonette,^[4] Byron DeSersa^[5] and Anna Mae Aquash.^[6]

Edited August 28 by Greg Doudna

[Denny Zartman]

You definitely went the extra mile @Andrej Stancak. Good work.