There's a reason why society conducts hours long autopsy's on cleaned up bodies instead of relying on a casual glance in Emergency of a blood spattered head, with blood matted hair and non secured skull flap all the while in hectic challenging circumstances. And don't forget that the Parkland surgeons in Emergency never even handled Kennedy's head wound.
Thanks to 21st Century Computer Power the impossible to fake stereoscopic back of head autopsy photos
only show a bullet entrance and no large exit hole
but what we do see is a complete corroboration of the skull flap which is seen in the equally impossible to fake Zapruder film. JohnM
Also. See Zapruder frame 275. For a man who has been allegedly hit by a magic bullet entering his right side just below the shoulder, had several ribs shattered, and had a major chest exit wound, he sure looks pretty spry and flexible, as he turns a full 90 degrees to his right, looking directly at the president..." who I could not see". Sure, if you are a Zapruder alterationist,, I guess. : )
How do you know Connally was cognizant at that moment?So, when was Connally hit in the back? Which Z frame?
He remembers seeing and hearing things near the time when he fell backwards towards Nellie, which occurs later than Z275. He told the HSCA:
"The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked,
immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. So, I knew I had been
badly hit and I more or less straightened up. At about this time, Nelly reached
over and pulled me down into her lap."
"when the third shot was fired I was in a reclining position, and heard it, saw it
and the effects of it, rather ..."
This spurious argument was debunked decades ago. Let us start by quoting from Dr. McClelland's WC testimony:
Mr. SPECTER. Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with respect to the head wound?
Dr. McCLELLAND. As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, 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. (2 H 33)
this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself
Thanks for posting McClelland's own words, now explain how McClelland could look down into a wound on the back of Kennedy's head and see a third of the brain missing, how could he even make such a declaration if there was only a hole on the back of Kennedy's head?
Whereas the official wound location as verified in the Zapruder film and the officially authenticated Autopsy photos is the only logical explanation for this telling observation. JohnM
Hogwash. Dr. Mantik studied F3 (the back-of-the-head photo) with a stereo viewer at the National Archives and found that it does *not* show stereoscopic consistency, which means it has been faked.
So your "answer" to all the mutually corroborating Bethesda and Parkland descriptions of the large head wound is to nit-pick McClelland's verbiage and to once again post your goofy top-of-head GIF? That's it?
Oh, boy.
So you're going to latch onto a hyper-literal interpretation of "look down" and simply ignore the fact that McClelland's description of the large head wound closely corresponds to nearly all the other descriptions of the wound? It is amazing to see the difference in how you treat witnesses like McClelland and how you treat witnesses like Brennan.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe the condition of the back of the
President's head ?
Dr. McCLELLAND. Well, partially; not, of course, as I say, we did
not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged. We
attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely
necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound.
McClelland seems to say he could not see the very rear of the President's head.
"That there was not only a horrible gaping wound but that it was
a cavity that extended down into the head. And as I stood there
holding the retractor, I was looking down into it all the time. I was
no more than eighteen inches away from the wound all the time,
standing just above it, which was ten to fifteen minutes at least."
-- Robert McClelland, 1991
How can McClelland be "looking down" into a gaping wound at the back of the head if he's "standing just above it" such that he could see it "extended down into the head"? The President's head have to be turned so that the back of the head was upright.
"He was in terrible shape; the right side of his brain had been
blown out."
-- Robert McClelland, 1993
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe the condition of the back of the
President's head ?
Dr. McCLELLAND. Well, partially; not, of course, as I say, we did
not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged. We
attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely
necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound.
McClelland seems to say he could not see the very rear of the President's head.
"That there was not only a horrible gaping wound but that it was
a cavity that extended down into the head. And as I stood there
holding the retractor, I was looking down into it all the time. I was
no more than eighteen inches away from the wound all the time,
standing just above it, which was ten to fifteen minutes at least."
-- Robert McClelland, 1991
How can McClelland be "looking down" into a gaping wound at the back of the head if he's "standing just above it" such that he could see it "extended down into the head"? The President's head have to be turned so that the back of the head was upright.
"He was in terrible shape; the right side of his brain had been
blown out."
-- Robert McClelland, 1993
(https://i.postimg.cc/V60gDVrc/Mc-Clellandpoints.gif)
So even in the statements you quote, McClelland said "I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound."
(https://i.postimg.cc/V60gDVrc/Mc-Clellandpoints.gif)It is always interesting to see how people draw very different conclusion by interrupting a visual image. What I see is that his hand definitely lands near the official wound location. But the circle he draws ends up in the same place his drawings and other demonstration have shown. When he finishes the circle his finger is nowhere near where it started. It seems like he may have touched his head then dragged his fingers to where he wanted to make the circle.
JohnM
It is always interesting to see how people draw very different conclusion by interrupting a visual image. What I see is that his hand definitely lands near the official wound location. But the circle he draws ends up in the same place his drawings and other demonstration have shown. When he finishes the circle his finger is nowhere near where it started. It seems like he may have touched his head then dragged his fingers to where he wanted to make the circle.
Try holding your hand 6 inches from your head and decide what part of the head you will touch. You may find that the place your finger lands is an inch or two away from where you thought it would land.
Try holding your hand 6 inches from your head and decide what part of the head you will touch. You may find that the place your finger lands is an inch or two away from where you thought it would land.
Sticks an arrow in his preferred location and ignores what the guy's hand is actually doing.
Are you claiming that McClelland's hand has entered the 4th dimension and is actually doing something else?
In the following still, McClelland is indicating the front edge of the wound which just happens to coincide with the autopsy photo below, Geez Louise, what are the chances!
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqkCcMzt/What-Mc-Clelland-s-hand-is-actually-doing.jpg)
My "preferred location" is reinforced by the actual autopsy photo's and the HSCA's medical panel's analysis.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bvxx153B/Jfkautopsyrotateright.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/5Nz6HCPP/jfk-skull-hsca.jpg)
JohnM
McClelland initially points to where his scalp meets his hairline and because I look at this point on myself virtually everyday, I have no trouble locating this position and there is no way that I'd miss this location by two inches, try it yourself. If you have no hair, close your eyes and point to the top of your ear, do you miss the top of your ear by even an inch?
Within context of when the GIF is taken, it's after McClelland is shown the official autopsy photos and he has no choice but to point to where the wounds front most extremity actually was, where he ends up is a subconscious attempt to save face and/or just a muscle memory trace of his usual deceptive location.
Look at the level of McClelland's ear in the GIF as compared to the level of the ear in his infamous drawing, which bears little resemblance to where he's actually pointing.
(https://i.postimg.cc/V60gDVrc/Mc-Clellandpoints.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/xd1mbdNc/Mc-Clelland-bohc.jpg)
"I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly"
Dr Robert McClelland from the NOVA JFK documentary.
JohnM
Are you claiming that McClelland's hand has entered the 4th dimension and is actually doing something else?
In the following still, McClelland is indicating the front edge of the wound which just happens to coincide with the autopsy photo below, Geez Louise, what are the chances!
My "preferred location" is reinforced by the actual autopsy photo's and the HSCA's medical panel's analysis.
JohnM
"I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly." Dr Robert McClelland from the NOVA JFK documentary.
For the 25th observance of the assassination (1988), four Parkland physicians (Robert McClelland, Richard Delaney, Paul Peters, and Marion Jenkins) traveled to the National Archives to view the autopsy materials. On leaving, they were asked by Nova if their recollections disagreed with the photographs. This time many investigators expected that they would disagree, but now another kind of surprise these physicians seemed to imply that they had seen no discrepancies. Nonetheless, on subsequent careful questioning, they later complained that the Nova program had either misquoted or misinterpreted their comments. (https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf)
Plus, we don't what autopsy photos McClelland was shown.
There is also the fact, which you guys also never mention, that the Parkland doctors who viewed the autopsy photos at the National Archives in 1988 for the Nova documentary complained that Nova either misquoted or misinterpreted their comments:[/size]
How incompetent were the Parkland doctors not to see the this top of the head wound as in the "official" photos,
https://i.postimg.cc/bvxx153B/Jfkautopsyrotateright.jpg
where he ends up is a subconscious attempt to save face and/or just a muscle memory trace of his usual deceptive location.
Quote from: John Mytton on August 15, 2020, 08:49:01 AM
where he ends up is a subconscious attempt to save face and/or just a muscle memory trace of his usual deceptive location.
Let me show you to my best recollection what the wound looked like to me that day in Trauma Room 1. [Starts drawing a diagram of the wound] I could see the president's head wound quite well. I was probably looking into a wound [holds hand on the right-rear side of his head] that was probably on the lateral or the side part of the head and the back part of the head [still holding hand on the right-rear part of his head]. . . .
I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they are shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly. There was a very large wound that I saw on the back of the head and the side of the head [holds hand on the right-rear part of his head] that I described earlier.
You must be joking. Have you ever actually watched the NOVA documentary from which the GIF was taken? Here is what Dr. McClelland says in the documentary as he starts to draw a diagram of the large head wound's location, before he views the autopsy photos:
And here is what Dr. McClelland says, and demonstrates, right after he has viewed the autopsy photos for NOVA:
You guys always quote the first part of his statement but omit the second part, the part where he says that the autopsy photos that he saw showed the same large head wound that he had described earlier.
Here is a screencap that shows Dr. McClelland demonstrating the wound's location while he is giving the above-quoted description:
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/nova2.jpg)
And here is the diagram (on the right) that Dr. McClellan approved for NOVA as a representation of the wound that he saw:
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/nova1.jpg)
You really need to do some homework and get a handle on the facts of the case, and stop just blindly defending the lone-gunman nonsense.
Organ: That drawing was published 11 years prior to the NOVA program in the book "Six Seconds in Dallas".
Organ: Isn't there a voice-over being heard at the moment of your screen grab?
Organ: Later on McClelland runs his fingers over that area of the head when discussing some scalp tears he theorized had fallen back to there.
I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they are shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly. There was a very large wound that I saw on the back of the head and the side of the head [holds hand on the right-rear part of his head] that I described earlier.
Yes, Dr. McClelland's drawing of the large wound was done years before the NOVA documentary, but he approved the drawing for NOVA as an accurate representation of the wound that he saw. The NOVA narration states this. Did you miss this when you watched the documentary?
Yes, there's a voice-over, but I was only quoting what Dr. McClelland says in that segment, and he says that the photos he saw showed the large back-of-head wound that he had described earlier. You guys always omit that part and only quote the first part where he says he saw no discrepancy between the photos and the wound he saw at Parkland.
Oh, gosh. This nonsense again? As you know, you are simply ignoring what McClelland himself says while he demonstrates the wound. Why can't you guys ever just admit plain fact? In the post-photo-viewing segment, McClelland says that the wound he saw in the autopsy photos was in the right-rear part of the head, that it was the same wound that he had described just before seeing the photos. Let's read what he says again, and he says this while he puts his hand on the right-rear part of this head:
QuoteI find no discrepancy between the wounds as they are shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly. There was a very large wound that I saw on the back of the head and the side of the head [holds hand on the right-rear part of his head] that I described earlier.
Why oh why do we have to go over this stuff again and again? Answer: Because you guys simply refuse to acknowledge facts that everyone can see and hear when McClelland describes and demonstrates the wound. One would think that at some point you guys would realize that you are embarrassing and discrediting yourselves with these pathetic evasions and denials.
McClelland described and demonstrated the same back-of-head wound that Nurse Henchliffe held a pressure dressing against, the wound that Nurse Bowron packed with gauze, the wound that Clint Hill saw for several minutes in two different locations, and the wound that the mortician filled with rubber to prepare the body for burial: the large wound in the back of the head, in the right occipital-parietal region, the wound that can be seen in its pre-skull-reconstruction form in autopsy photo F8.
The drawing suggests what many of the photos examined by the doctors and by NOVA show: a large wound about this size and location. (51:14 to 51:21 in the documentary)
Wounds in the lower front portion of the neck and the right rear side of the head ended the life of President John F. Kennedy, say doctors at Parkland Hospital. . . .
The front neck hole was described as an entrance wound. . . .
Dr. Clark said the President's principal wound was on the right rear side of his head. (https://archive.org/stream/nsia-KritzbergConnie/nsia-KritzbergConnie/Kritzberg%20Connie%2001_djvu.txt)
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)
When we picked him up, you could feel the mushy part of the brain and the brain, the bone was kind of putting enough pressure on my hand that you knew that there was a jagged portion of it, but it wasn't cutting my hand or anything, but you could still feel that through the sheets, as I was raising the head up and had my hand behind his head.
Here is an illustration of two autopsy photos being combined. Though made for illustrative purposes only, it does appear to be somewhat accurate because you can clearly see the reflected scalp with the bullet hole in it. The autopsy states that a rear head shot was documented. The image is a GIF and may take a moment to load as it's a large file:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Gj6op6Miask/XdfqNLPD_tI/AAAAAAAAFco/Jr-scSZf3lYN40rzcrRg-ePNBwbDkn1wQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/JFK-Back-of-Head-Animated.gif)
First, regarding Jerry Organ's reply about McClelland's NOVA comments, rather than waste time answering Organ's repeated lies, evasions, and false denials, I just invite you to go watch the segment for yourselves, and you will see that McClelland said exactly what I quoted him as saying, and that he did in fact put his hand over the right-rear part of his head both times.
You will also see that the NOVA narrator did in fact say that McClelland approved the drawing of the back of the head that they showed next to a back-of-head autopsy photo rendition and by itself, i.e., the drawing that McClelland himself had drawn years earlier that shows a right-rear wound. You will hear the narrator say, "The drawing was approved by Dr. McClelland" (46:21 to 46:25 in the documentary). Pull up the documentary on YouTube, fast-forward to 46:21, and you will hear the narrator say these words.
In fact, a few minutes later, the narrator makes the rather amazing statement that the McClelland drawing shows the wound that the doctors "and NOVA" saw in some of the autopsy photos! I quote:
The narrator then goes on to note the contradiction between McClelland's drawing and the artist rendition of a back-of-the-head autopsy photo that shows no damage to the occiput and no damage to the right-rear parietal area.
I might add that when McClelland testified before the WC and the ARRB, he said that the large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head, and he said the same thing at every recorded public appearance whenever he talked about the wound's location.
As for the Clint Hill video clip in Organ's post, which was filmed many years after the fact,
I will simply note that Hill's description of the wound in the video is very different from the description he gave in his official report and in his WC testimony. I'll take his original report and WC testimony over his decades-later change of story. I could also show you a video clip made a few years earlier than the one Organ shows in which Hill said the head blew off "the back" of JFK's head. Hill's official report and WC testimony say nothing about any damage to the top or side of the head, not one word.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XN5fLp7m/Clintshowem.gif) | Not a valid vimeo URL(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) On the day of the assassination, Abraham Zapruder demonstrated something similar to Clint Hill's clip. |
Before moving on to the main subject of this post, let it be noted that autopsy photo F8 shows a large occipital wound, that OD scans of the autopsy skull x-rays prove that a substantial amount of occipital bone was blown away, and that new research on the Harper fragment has firmly established that it is occipital bone.
Now to the main subject of this post: the 11/22/63 medical report of Parkland Hospital’s neurosurgeon, Dr. Kemp Clark. It should be noted that his report says the same thing about the large head wound that he said in a press conference earlier that day.
At 3:30 PM, three hours after the assassination, Dr. Clark and Dr. Malcolm Perry held a telephonic press conference for local reporters who had been unable to attend the official press conference. One of the local reporters on the line was Connie Kritzberg of the Dallas Times-Herald. The next day, 11/23/, her article on the teleconference was published. She reported that Dr. Clark said the large head wound was in “the right-rear side of the head” and added that the throat wound was described as “an entrance wound”:
A few months later, Dr. Clark told the Warren Commission (WC) that he had “examined” the wound “in the back of the President’s head,” that it was in the “right posterior part” of the head, and that cerebellar and cerebral brain tissue was exposed in the wound:
So the hospital’s neurosurgeon “examined” the large head wound and reported that it was in the “right posterior” part of the head, and also noted that he could see cerebellar tissue in the wound. Any first-year medical student knows that cerebellar tissue looks very different than other brain tissue, and that cerebellar tissue is located only in the back of the head.
(http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/MD185-2.JPG) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Exit Wound | (http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/MD185-3.JPG) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Entry Wound (Only Parkland doctor to claim this) |
There is a Parkland witness whom I have not yet mentioned: Al (Aubrey) Rike. Rike worked for O'Neal's Funeral Home and helped load JFK's body into the casket at Parkland Hospital after the head and body had been wrapped in sheets. He reported that while he had his hand on the back of JFK's head ("had my hand behind his head"), he could feel the edges of a wound and could feel brain tissue in the wound. I quote from his recorded interview with David Lifton:
So we have yet another witness who handled the wound and who noted that it was in the back of the head.
No FMJ bullet striking a skull is going to break into dozens of fragments, leave dozens of fragments in the skull, leave a fragment above or below the entry point on the outer table of the skull, and leave sizable fragments in the area outside the skull. That is fantasy. FMJ bullets do not behave like that. No credible, honest forensic pathologist or wound ballistics expert would endorse such a scenario. I cover this matter in detail in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds":
https://miketgriffith.com/files/forensic.htm (https://miketgriffith.com/files/forensic.htm)
The problem there is the x-rays are about as useless as could be. It seems like no expert (on either side of the divide) can understand what is in them.
Sorry, but that's just ridiculously erroneous.
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 16, 2020, 02:17:05 PM
Sorry, but that's just ridiculously erroneous.
Its not. The x-rays should have been the key to solving the JFK assassination (whether he was shot from the front or back) but instead they tell us JFK was shot with a 6.5mm semi-circular blob that Dr. Mantik has become obsessed about.
Its not. The x-rays should have been the key to solving the JFK assassination (whether he was shot from the front or back) but instead they tell us JFK was shot with a 6.5mm semi-circular blob that Dr. Mantik has become obsessed about.
I agree that the medical evidence (the autopsy report, the X-rays, the photographs) in any murder case is of the utmost importance, but in the assassination of the President it has been tainted by stories of destroyed autopsy evidence, missing autopsy evidence, multiple original autopsy reports, altered photographs and X-rays, conflicting witness statements about the location and size of the wounds and so on.
Take the head wound. At autopsy it was determined that the bullet had entered the back of JFK's head LOW, a little above and to the right of the EOP, and created a large exit wound in the parietal bone, extending into the temporal and occipital regions.
The HSCA relocated the entry wound in the skull to the top of the head, while limiting the large exit wound almost entirely to the parietal region - at least that is how it appears in the Dox drawing.
The autopsy photograph of the back and top of the head does not show any of these wounds, except the bone flap which is in the back of the photo. The purpose of the picture is unclear, and the reason the ruler is held near the head and what exactly it is measuring is anybody's guess, as it can't be there to measure the size of the bullet hole in the cowlick, as the pathologists had located the entry wound 4 inches lower.
All good points. Here are some other problems with the autopsy evidence:
* The autopsy report describes a fragment trail that ran from the EOP to a point just above the right eye, but no such fragment trail is seen on the extant x-rays. Where did it go? Did they somehow incomprehensible "mistake" the fragment trail near the top of the head for a fragment trail that started at the EOP?
* The autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail now seen on the extant x-rays. So either the autopsy doctors somehow "missed it," or it was not there on the night of the autopsy, or the autopsy doctors saw it but said nothing about it because it did not line up with the EOP entry site.
* The autopsy report says that part of the large head wound extended into the occipital region (the occiput), but some of the autopsy photos do not show the large wound coming anywhere near the occiput. It's not even close in those photos.