JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on August 11, 2020, 12:14:42 AM

Title: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 11, 2020, 12:14:42 AM
I have mentioned the Parkland Hospital medical reports on President Kennedy’s treatment. These reports were written by the Parkland doctors who took part in the treatment of JFK. They were written just hours after Kennedy died, when the events were still fresh in the their minds, and before anyone had a chance to pressure them to change their recollections. The Warren Commission (WC) was nice enough to include these reports in its exhibits. The reports comprise CE 392. Below are some important statements found in those reports.

A few things to keep in mind while you read these excerpts from the reports: Cerebellar tissue, i.e., tissue from the cerebellum, is located only in the lower part of the back of the head, and it is easy to distinguish from other brain tissue. Occipital bone is located only in the back of the back of the head. Occipital bone is the bone in the occiput, which is centered in the back of the skull. The temporal bone is below the parietal bone and borders the occipital region. The majority of the temporal bone is behind the ear, i.e., the majority of it is on what most people would call “the back of the head.”

Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon:

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

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

COMMENT: Cerebellar tissue could only have extruded from the wound if part of the wound was in the occipital region, so it is no surprise that Dr. Clark said the large wound was in the right occipital-parietal region. His wording suggests that most of the wound was occipital.

Dr. Charles Carrico:

Two wounds were noted. One small penetrating wound of the neck in lower 1/3. The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present and profuse oozing. . . .

. . . wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx. . . .

. . . attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue. . . . (Admission note of Dr. Charles Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

COMMENT: If the throat wound was “immediately below the larynx,” then it was above the collar, just as Carrico told the WC.

(https://miketgriffith.com/files/larynx.jpg)

Dr. Malcolm Perry:

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

COMMENT: The large was wound in the “right posterior” of the skull.

Dr. Charles Baxter:

The president had a wound in the midline of the neck. . . . wounds of the temporal and occipital bones . . . and the brain was lying on the table. (Admission note of Dr. Charles Baxter, 11/22/63, p. 1, CE 392)

Dr. Robert McClelland:

The president was at that time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head and a fragment wound of the trachea. . . .

Cause of death was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. (Admission note of Dr. Robert McClelland, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

COMMENT: Dr. McClelland probably meant JFK’s right temple, which would have been his “left” temple from McClelland’s perspective. Several other witnesses saw a small wound in the right temple, including the mortician, Tom Robinson. Note, also, that McClelland believed a fragment could have caused the throat wound, so it must have been small.

Dr. Marion T. Jenkins:

There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. (Statement of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, 11/22/63, p. 2, CE 392)

COMMENT: Again, part of the large hole was in the occiput, and tissue from the cerebellum, which is located only at the back of the head, protruded from the wound.

Compare these fresh, only-hours-old statements on the large head wound with those of other Parkland medical personnel made a few months later:

Dr. Ronald Jones, Parkland doctor:

. . . he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head. . . .

There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted with the brain. . . .

The hole [in the throat] was very small and relatively clean cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient. (6 H 53-56)

Dr. Gene Akin, Parkland doctor:

The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding. . . .

I assume the right occipital-parietal 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. . . .

This [the neck wound] must have been an entrance wound. . . . (6 H 65-67)

Dr. Paul Peters, Parkland doctor:

It was pointed out that an examination of the brain had been done. . . .

We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound. . . .

I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. . . . (6 H 70-71)

Nurse Patricia Hutton, who helped treat Kennedy:

Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head. . . . A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head. (21 H 216)

Nurse Diana Bowron, who helped treat Kennedy, who packed gauze squares into his head wound, and who wrapped his head in a sheet 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. I just saw one large hole. (6 H 136)

Nurse Margaret Henchliffe, a Parkland nurse who helped treat JFK:

Mr. SPECTER. Did you see any wound anywhere on his body?
Miss HENCHLIFFE. Yes; he was very bloody, his head was very bloody when I saw him at the time.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you ever see any wound in any other part of his body?
Miss HENCHLIFFE. When I first saw him—except his head.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you see any wound on any other part of his body?
Miss HENCHLIFFE. Yes : in the neck.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe it, please?
Miss HENCHLIFFE. It was just a little hole in the middle of his neck.
Mr. SPECTER. About how big a hole was it?
Miss HENCHLIFFE. About as big around as the end of my little finger.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you ever had any experience with bullet holes?
Miss HENCHLIFFE. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And what did that appear to you to be?
Miss HENCHLIFFE. An entrance bullet hole—it looked to me like.
Mr. SPECTER. Could it have been an exit bullet hole?
Miss HENCHLIFFE. I have never seen an exit bullet hole—I don't remember seeing one that looked like that. (6 H 141)

Jackie Kennedy, JFK’s wife, who held his head in her hands on the way to the hospital:

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)

Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who jumped onto the back of the limo and got a close-up look at JFK’s large head wound:

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head. (2 H 141)

Agent Hill also saw JFK’s body at the morgue at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and he said the back wound was about 6 inches below the neck line:

Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question? At the hospital in Texas, you had seen—had you seen the whole body, or just the back of the President's head?
Mr. HILL. I had seen the whole body, but he was still cold when I saw him.
Representative BOGGS. At the morgue in Bethesda he was not cold?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; the autopsy had been completed, and the Lawler Mortuary Co. was preparing the body for placement in a casket.
Representative BOGGS. At this time did you see the whole body?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir.
Representative BOGGS. Did you see any other wound other than the head wound?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column. (2 H 143)

William Greer, the Secret Service agent who drove the limo:

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe about the President with respect to his wounds?
Mr. GREER. His head was all shot, this whole part was all a matter of blood like he had been hit.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the top and right-rear side of the head?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; it looked like that was all blown off. (2 H 124)

Now, compare these statements with the statements made to the HSCA and the ARRB by witnesses at the autopsy, including the wound diagrams some of those witnesses drew:

http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/horne/Backes2a.html
http://www.jfklancer.com/Backes.html
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: John Mytton on August 11, 2020, 12:41:22 AM
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.

(https://i.postimg.cc/HsMbxnZ7/JFKBOHlatest-700.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/65zGjPQY/Zapruder-Z314.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 11, 2020, 12:24:06 PM
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.

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)

Furthermore, the Parkland doctors and nurses had plenty of time to view the wounds in a non-emergency environment between the time they declared JFK dead and the time his body left the hospital--his body did not leave the hospital until over an hour after he was declared dead. The body had to be cleaned; the head wound had to be packed; the head had to be wrapped; and the body had to be wrapped. So the doctors and nurses had plenty of time to view the wounds before the body was placed in the casket.

Clint Hill saw the body at the Bethesda morgue, and he was called there for the express purpose of recording JFK's wounds, and he saw the same right-rear head wound that he saw up-close for 4 minutes in the limo hours earlier, the same back-of-the-head wound that Jackie was holding down in the limo on the way to the hospital. Diana Bowron packed the large head wound with gauze squares, so she both handled and closely examined the wound, and she said it was in the back of the head. And on and on we could go. Plus, a neurosurgeon is not going to be mistaken about cerebellar brain tissue, which looks very different than any other brain tissue.

And I notice you said nothing about the fact that the Bethesda witnesses likewise saw the large wound in the back of the head. Tom Robinson, the mortician, had to handle it as he reassembled the skull. Dr. Ebersole, the radiologist, handled the head as he positioned it to take the skull x-rays--he said the large wound was in the right-rear part of the head.

You're just gonna have to do a lot better than "they were all mistaken." That argument is pitiful and silly when you look at the eyewitness evidence.


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

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. F3 is also the photo that Dr. Finck disputed when the HSCA showed it to him. F3 is also the photo that Dr. Ebersole told the HSCA did not show the large head wound that he remembered. F3 is also the photo that Nurse Bowron said was bogus.

And how do you square F3 with F8 and with the autopsy report? The autopsy report says the large head wound extended into the occiput? In F3 and F5, the large wound is above and forward of the right ear and is nowhere the occiput. F8 shows a sizable amount of occipital bone missing.

And how in the world do you square your alleged rear head entry wound in F3 with the skull x-rays? There is no wound there in the x-rays, as the three ARRB radiologic experts confirmed, and as we now know some of the HSCA's expert consultants told the HSCA. And what about the EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail that the autopsy doctors swore up and down they saw on the lateral skull x-rays? Where is it? Why is it nowhere to be seen on the extant x-rays? Did they somehow "mistake" the top-of-head fragment trail for a trail that was 4 inches lower and that had no relation to the EOP?! You guys need to start dealing with these issues if you want to remain relevant. Ignoring them won't make them go away.


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

Once again you are years behind the information curve. It was entirely possible in 1963 to alter the Zapruder film, and we now know that the Z film was diverted to a CIA-contracted lab in New York and then flown back to the CIA's NPIC photo lab in DC. I take it you have not heard of former CIA photo analyst Don Brugioni? He revealed a few years ago that there were two different versions of the Zapruder film at NPIC and that he prepared his briefing boards based on the first version, whereas the second team based their boards on the second version, the version that came back from the CIA-contracted photo lab in New York. Have you heard about any of this?

And have you read any of the scientific studies on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film, studies done by physicists and film experts? Have you read any of this material?

Here are some links to get you started on your long-overdue research:

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/altered-history-exposing-deceit-and-deception-in-the-jfk-assassination-medical-evidence-part-4-video/
A presentation by Doug Horne, the former chief analyst of military records for the ARRB.

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/tag/hawkeye-works/
An article by scientist Richard Charnin on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.

https://miketgriffith.com/files/zfilmaltered.pdf
My own humble effort on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.


Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: John Tonkovich on August 12, 2020, 07:14:42 AM
Wow. Two of the blind men discussing the elephant.
For Mr Griffith:  " fragment wound".
From where did this fragment originate? From the front? Side?

I won't bother with the other guy; he still thinks it's perfectly normal that Connally's suit was laundered.
Hint: think blood and brain splatter.
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.  : )
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 12, 2020, 04:00:48 PM
Let us now compare the Parkland descriptions of the large head wound with the Bethesda descriptions of the wound.

But, first, let’s be honest: Nobody really believes that dozens of medical personnel and numerous federal agents and others, in three different locations, were “mistaken” when they reported that JFK’s large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head. Nobody really believes this, especially now that we have scientific evidence that a white patch was placed on the right-rear part of the skull on the lateral skull x-rays, and now that we know that autopsy photo F8 shows bone missing from the occiput.

We know that the Parkland doctors knew the large head wound was on the back of the head because one of the first things they had to do was locate large wounds that were bleeding and then stop the bleeding. They quickly noted the large wound in the right occipital-parietal area and ordered Nurse Hutton to put a pressure dressing on the wound to stop it from bleeding, but the wound was so massive that she could not stop the bleeding:

“Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head. . . . A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head.” (21 H 216)

About 30 minutes later, Nurse Bowron packed that same large head wound with gauze squares to prepare the body for placement in the casket, and she said the wound was in “the back of his head” (6 H 136).

This was the same part of the head that Jackie told the WC she was trying to hold together on the way to Parkland: "the back" of his head.

Tom Robinson, the mortician who reassembled JFK’s skull

Hours later, at Bethesda Naval Hospital, after the autopsy, the mortician, Tom Robinson, had to fill this same back-of-the-head wound to prepare the body for burial. He told the HSCA that he used “heavy-duty rubber . . . to fill this area . . . in the back of the head” (HSCA interview transcript, 1/12/1977, p. 3). He told the ARRB the same thing (ARRB interview transcript, 6/18/1996, pp. 3-4). He told the ARRB that there was “a large open head wound in the back of the President's head centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone as well as some scalp” (ARRB interview transcript, 6/18/1996, p. 3). Mind you: this is the guy who not only watched the autopsy but who reassembled the skull after the autopsy.

Here is the wound diagram that Robinson drew for the ARRB:

(http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/Robinson1.GIF)

John VonHoesen, who assisted Robinson with preparing the body for burial

John VonHoesen assisted Tom Robinson. Both he and Robinson worked for Gawler’s Funeral Home and helped prepare JFK’s body for burial. VonHoesen said the large head wound “was roughly the size of a small orange (estimated by gesturing with his hands) in the centerline of the back of the head,” and he specified that this hole was still visible after the head had been reconstructed (ARRB interview transcript, 9/25/1996, p. 2).

VonHoesen added that “the damaged area in the back of the President's head was not visible as the President lay supine in the casket and that it was covered by the pillow which the President's head was resting on” (ARRB interview transcript, 9/25/1996, p. 2).

Joe Hagan, who also assisted Robinson

Joe Hagan was another Gawler’s Funeral Home technician who helped Tom Robinson prepare JFK’s body for burial. He did not want to talk to the ARRB and had to be subpoenaed. At first he refused to describe the large head wound that he saw during and after the autopsy. After being repeatedly pressed to report what he saw, he said that "all of this was open in the back” while holding his two hands about 6 inches away from his upper posterior skull gesturing to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head (ARRB interview transcript, 4/16/1996, p. 3) When describing how the large head wound looked while the head was being reconstructed, he said it was in the “posterior skull” (ARRB interview transcript, 4/16/1996, p. 3).

James Sibert, FBI agent who attended the autopsy

James Sibert was an FBI agent who attended the autopsy and who remained at Bethesda for a while after the autopsy. He saw Robinson and other Gawler’s technicians getting ready to prepare JFK’s body for burial. Sibert told the ARRB there was “a large cavity” at the “back part of the head” and, while motioning, he said, "It’s in the back part of the head here” (ARRB interview transcript, 9/11/1997, pp. 66-71). Sibert agreed to draw a diagram of the head wound. Here is the diagram he drew:

(http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/sibert2.gif)

Sibert might have based this on how JFK's skull looked after it had been reconstructed. Both Robinson and VonHoesen said there was still a hole in the occiput after skull reconstruction had been completed.

Francis O’Neill, FBI agent who attended the autopsy

Francis O’Neill was the other FBI agent who attended the autopsy. He and Sibert wrote a report on the autopsy. O’Neill repeatedly told the ARRB that there was brain and bone missing “from the back of the head, behind the ear” (ARRB interview transcript, 9/12/1997, p. 117) Years earlier, O’Neill told the HSCA the same thing. Here is the diagram that O’Neill drew of the large head wound for the HSCA:

(http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/oneill2.gif)

When the ARRB interviewer showed O’Neill autopsy photo F3 (the back-of-the-head photo), he said, “This looks like it’s been doctored in some way,” and he recalled there was “a larger [sic] opening in the back of the head” (ARRB interview transcript, 9/12/1997, p. 158).

At a symposium at the Franklin Pierce Law Center, 4/2/1992, O’Neill said that the head-shot bullet “really did knock off the back of the brain, backside of the president’s head” (http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FXO/transcript.pdf). It should be noted that O’Neill made this comment while defending the lone-gunman theory and while arguing for Oswald’s guilt!

By the way, O’Neill insisted to the ARRB that the back wound was much lower than where Boswell later placed it in a magazine article (Boswell put it where the autopsy report claimed it was):

“I had heard--I had seen--supposedly drawings from some publication where Boswell made drawings or alluded to the bullet wound in the back being not actually in the back but in the back of the neck. And I disagreed thoroughly with that.” (ARRB interview transcript, 9/12/1997, p. 111)

Saundra Spencer, Navy photographic technician, head of the White House photo lab

Saundra Spencer developed photos of JFK’s body. At the time, Spencer was a senior non-commissioned officer in the Navy and worked at the Naval Photographic Center in DC. She was in charge of the White House photo lab. In the photos that she developed, she saw “a wound in the back of the President's head” that was “about 2 to 2.5 inches wide located in about the center of the back of the President's head about 3 or 4 inches above the hairline at the back of his head” (ARRB interview transcript, 12/13/1996, p. 3).

She added that she remembered “no damage to the right side of the President's head” (ARRB interview transcript, 12/13/1996, p. 3).

Joe O’Donnell, USIA photographer

Joe O’Donnell was a federal photographer who worked for the USIA in 1963. About a week after the assassination, White House photographer Robert Knudsen, who developed some of the autopsy photos, showed him some of the autopsy pictures. O’Donnell told the ARRB that the photos he saw “included the President lying on his back, on his stomach, and closeups of the back of the head.” He said that the back-of-the-head photograph “showed a hole in the back of the head about 2 inches above the hairline about the size of a grapefruit” (ARRB interview transcript, 1/29/1997, p. 2).

Robert Knudsen, White House photographer

White House photographer Robert Knudsen, who, as mentioned, showed some autopsy photos to Joe O’Donnell, told the HSCA that the back-of-the-head photo that he saw showed “the wound in the right rear of the head, a little right of center” (HSCA interview transcript, 8/11/1978, p. 36).
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Louis Earl on August 12, 2020, 06:10:44 PM
But ... Oswald did it and in order for him to have done it he had to have shot from behind so all evidence inconsitent with a shot from behind is inaccurate.
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: John Tonkovich on August 12, 2020, 09:27:18 PM
Mytton: Zapruder frame 275 is quite telling.
The medical evidence is also important.
Connally's career was on the line.
A big strong Texas hero sees Kennedy has been hit.
He immediately looks to help the President.
Nope. Just tries to save his own skin.
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 12, 2020, 10:29:04 PM
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?

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 ..."
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: John Tonkovich on August 12, 2020, 10:58:12 PM
How do you know Connally was cognizant at that moment?

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 ..."
So, when was Connally hit in the back? Which Z frame?
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 13, 2020, 05:34:04 PM
Let us continue to compare the Parkland descriptions of JFK’s large head wound with the Bethesda descriptions.

Keep in mind that part of the temporal bone is behind the ear, and that its lower half borders the occiput. The occiput is the main bone in the back of the head. Most of the parietal bone is behind the ear, and the lower part of the parietal bone borders the temporal and occipital bones.

Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy

Dr. John Ebersole was the radiologist at the autopsy. He directed the taking of the autopsy x-rays. He was interviewed by the HSCA forensic pathology panel (FPP). Dr. Ebersole said that “the back of the head was missing” (HSCA interview transcript, 3/11/1978, p. 3). He added that he “personally held the head” (HSCA interview transcript, 3/11/1978, p. 10).

When the FPP showed Dr. Ebersole autopsy photos F3 (back of the head) and F5 (lower part of the back of the head) and asked him about the large head wound, he said that the photos showed the wound much farther forward and lateral then he remembered seeing it, “much more lateral and superior [forward] than I remembered,” and that ”my recollection is more of a gaping occipital wound than this.... I would have put the gaping wound here rather than more forward” (HSCA interview transcript, 3/11/1978, pp. 62-63).

By the way, Dr. Ebersole reported that the autopsy doctors learned of the throat wound during the autopsy, just as Dr. Malcolm Perry said, and contrary to Dr. Humes’s lie that he knew nothing about it until the next morning (HSCA interview transcript, 3/11/1978, pp. 4-5). Dr. Ebersole also reported that “a fragment of the occipital bone” (i.e., bone from the back of the head) arrived late during the autopsy, and that he x-rayed it (HSCA interview transcript, 3/11/1978, p. 5).

James Curtis Jenkins, a lab technician at the autopsy

James Jenkins was a lab technician at Bethesda Naval Hospital and saw part of the autopsy.

Jenkins told the HSCA that the large head wound was in the "middle temporal region back to the occipital" (HSCA interview transcript, 8/29/1977, p. 4). The middle temporal region back to the occiput is in the right-rear part of the head.

In a recorded interview with JFK research William Matson Law, Jenkins said,

"You could see that the area where the bone was actually missing was in the parietal-occipital area in the back of the head and extended downward touching the temporal area." (Jenkins and Law, At the Cold Shoulder of History, Trine Day, 2018, pp. 31-32)

Edward Reed, x-ray technician at the autopsy

Edward Reed was one of the x-ray technicians at the autopsy. He told the HSCA that the large head wound was “located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region” (HSCA interview transcript, 5/2/1978, p. 2).

There were three Bethesda witnesses who changed their descriptions of the large head wound when they were interviewed by the ARRB: Edward Reed, Jerrol Custer, and John Stringer. Fortunately for the sake of accurate history, all three had given recorded interviews years earlier in which they specified that the large head wound was in the back of the head. When they changed their tune with the ARRB, the ARRB interviewers confronted them with their previous statements. Reed and Custer would not budge even after being confronted with their earlier statements, but Stringer, after being played a recording of him saying the wound was in the back of the head, was eventually willing to acknowledge that there was bone missing from the occiput.

Someone appears to have rehearsed Reed’s testimony with him before his ARRB interview and told him what to say. Why? Because Reed claimed that he saw the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray on the night of the autopsy. Reed was the only Bethesda witness who said he saw the 6.5 mm object on an x-ray at the autopsy. Every other Bethesda witness, including all three autopsy doctors, who was asked about the 6.5 mm object said they did not see it on any x-ray that night. And, of course, we now know that the 6.5 mm object is a ghosted image that was added to the AP x-ray after the autopsy. So Reed was clearly lying to the ARRB, whereas his HSCA testimony about the large head wound agrees with that of the vast majority of the witnesses who saw the wound.

John Stringer, medical photographer at the autopsy

John Stringer took most of the autopsy photos. When interviewed, on tape, in 1972, he said the large head wound was in the back of the head:

LIFTON: Was the main damage to the skull on the top, or in the back?
STRINGER: In the back.
LIFTON: High In the back, or lower In the back?
STRINGER: Oh, the occipital part in the back there (garbled) up above the neck.
LIFTON: In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?
STRINGER: Yes. the back part. (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm; see also ARRB interview transcript, 7/16/1996, pp. 76-77. The ARRB played the recording of the 1972 interview for Jenkins during his deposition.)

In his ARRB deposition, Stringer initially described the large head wound as being mainly parietal and above and forward of the right ear. Then, the ARRB interviewer played the above-quoted portion from Stringer’s 1972 interview. Under what can be called cross-examination, Stringer said that there was in fact bone missing from the occiput and that the occiput was fractured; in referring to the occiput, he added, “some of the bone was still there,” which of course means that some of it was not (ARRB interview transcript, 7/16/1996, pp. 89-90).

Floyd Riebe, medical photographer at the autopsy

Floyd Riebe was a medical photographer at the autopsy; he assisted John Stringer.

Riebe told the HSCA that he saw a “large wound located around the rear of the head near the top” (HSCA interview transcript, 5/12/1978).

In the first part of his ARRB deposition, Riebe described the large head wound as being “occipital” and on the “right side of the back” of the head, and he even put his hand over the back of his head to demonstrate (ARRB interview transcript, 5/17/1997, pp. 44-45).

But, then, later in the interview, when shown autopsy photos F3 and F5, Riebe did a remarkable about-face and said he must have been mistaken about the wound’s location (ARRB interview transcript, 5/17/1997, p. 71). When pressed to explain his marked change of testimony, Riebe blamed the change on the “chaos” during the autopsy and claimed he must have just “misjudged” where the wounds were (ARRB interview transcript, 5/17/1997, p. 77).

This does not sound believable. Riebe was a trained medical photographer who had spent time at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. He surely knew the difference between a wound in the occipital region and a wound above and forward of the right ear in the parietal region, regardless of how much “chaos” there was at the autopsy. During his HSCA interview 19 years earlier, Riebe expressed no doubt about the wound’s location.

Furthermore, when Riebe was shown the autopsy photos of the head years earlier, he insisted they did not show the wounds that he saw, saying, "The two pictures you showed me are not what I saw that night." When asked to describe the large wound, Riebe held his hand over the back of his head and said, "It had a big hole in it. This whole area was gone." With regard to the pictures and X-rays, Riebe said, "It's being phonied some place. It's make believe” (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Livingstone%20Harrison%20Edward/Item%20072.pdf, pp. 8-9).

Dennis David, “chief of the day” at Bethesda on the day of the autopsy

David was a senior non-commissioned officer stationed at Bethesda. He was “chief of the day” at the hospital on the day of the assassination. He was at the morgue when JFK’s body arrived at 6:35 PM. He saw some of the autopsy photos a few days after the autopsy. A good friend of his, William Pitzer, was in charge of the Bethesda Naval Hospital’s audio-visual department, and Pitzer showed him some of the autopsy photos.

David told the ARRB that some of the photos “clearly showed a gaping wound in the back of the President's head and that the top of the head looked intact” (ARRB interview transcript, 2/6/1997, p. 4).

Dr. Robert Karnei, resident doctor at Bethesda

Dr. Robert Karnei was a second-year resident at Bethesda. He was on duty the day of the assassination and saw parts of the autopsy from a distance in the morgue. He left the morgue several times during the autopsy to perform various duties.

Dr. Karnei told the ARRB that he saw two wounds on JFK’s head, one above the right ear and the other “in the posterior skull, up high in the back of the head”; he added that the posterior wound was either in the center or just off-center, and that the “upper posterior skull sagged a bit” (ARRB interview transcript, 5/21/1996, pp. 2-3).

Given that Dr. Karnei did not see the head or body up-close, and given that he said the wound was in the upper part of the back of the head, the posterior wound he described must have been the same posterior wound described by Robinson, Hagan, Spencer, O’Donnell, etc. It could not have been the rear head entry wound because that wound was just above the EOP, and because we now know there was no entry wound in the cowlick.

Dr. Robert Canada, commanding officer of Bethesda treatment hospital

Dr. Robert O. Canada was the commanding officer of the treatment hospital at Bethesda Naval Hospital. He witnessed the autopsy.

Dr. Canada told historian Michael Kurtz in 1968 that he saw a “very large, 3-5 cm wound in the right rear of the President’s head, in the lower right occipital region,” and that the wound was “clearly an exit wound” because the occipital bone was “avulsed” (blown outward) (Kurtz, The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman versus Conspiracy, University Press of Kansas, 2006, p. 51; see also https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/altered-history-exposing-deciet-and-deception-in-the-jfk-assassination-medical-evidence-part-1/, segment on Dr. Canada begins at 1:08:20). Dr. Canada asked Dr. Kurtz not to reveal his account until 25 years after he died, so Kurtz did not write about until 2006.

Incidentally, Dr. Canada also said that the back wound was at around “T3,” that the bullet “did not exit,” and that its wound tract ended in the chest near the stomach (Kurtz, The JFK Assassination Debates, p. 91).

Paul O’Connor, medical technician at the autopsy

Paul O’Connor was a Navy medical technician at Bethesda who assisted with autopsies and who usually helped to perform autopsy craniotomies. He helped remove JFK’s body from the casket and witnessed much of the autopsy; he also saw part of the burial-preparation work done by the Gawler’s Funeral Home technicians.

O’Connor told the HSCA that the large head wound was in the “occipital around the temporal and parietal regions,” and that it appeared to him that the bullet “came in from the right front” (HSCA interview transcript, 8/29/1977, pp. 5-6).

When the HSCA interviewer showed O’Connor CE 386, the Rydberg medical illustration of the head wounds done for the WC, O’Connor said the drawing “did not reflect what I saw” (HSCA interview transcript, 8/29/1977, p. 9).

When interviewed in 2003, O’Connor said that the autopsy photo of the back of the head was false, and that the back of the head was “blown away”:

“One picture of the back of his head shows a complete skull and the hair is untouched,” said O’Connor, who as a 22-year-old Navy corpsman at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland assisted in the autopsy of the assassinated president. “But it was all blown away.” (https://www.gainesville.com/article/LK/20031122/news/604167677/GS)

Interestingly, and in agreement with Robinson and VonHoesen, O’Connor told the HSCA that part of the large head wound had to be filled with rubber and cement because there was still bone missing from it even after the skull fragments from Dallas arrived (HSCA interview transcript, 8/29/1977, p. 7).
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: John Mytton on August 14, 2020, 02:39:24 AM
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)


Quote
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.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Fs9xKhN6/Mc-Clellandlooks-down.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/TYFh4c7c/JFKAutopsy-Morph.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 14, 2020, 12:49:57 PM
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?

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.

Anyway, when Nurse Hutton applied a pressure dressing to the back-of-the-head wound (she specified it was in the back of the head), she would have at least slightly lifted the head to position the dressing, and McClelland, if nothing else, could have easily seen the wound and seen the dressing applied over the wound.

McClelland's description of the large head wound closely agrees with the descriptions in the 11/22/63 Parkland medical reports, which were written just hours after JFK died. His description and drawing exactly match Clint Hill's description of the wound, and Hill saw the wound for several minutes up-close in the limo and saw the same wound again at Bethesda. McClelland's description is also very similar to the descriptions given by Nurse Bowron, who packed the large head wound with gauze squares, and by Tom Robinson, the mortician who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy and who put rubber in the orange-sized hole in "the back of the 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

You know this is false. I already refuted this claim, but you simply keep ignoring the refutation and keep repeating the claim. The "officially authenticated autopsy photos" do not even agree with themselves. F8 shows a very different back of the head than F3 and F5 show, and OD measurements indicate there is occipital bone missing in the area where the manmade white patch was placed on the lateral skull x-rays. Are you ever going to deal with the hard scientific evidence that the white patch must be manmade? Why do you suppose that patch was placed there?

By the way, your "official authentication" was done by the same folks--the HSCA FPP--who mislocated the rear head entry wound by 4 inches, who "identified" a rear entry wound in the cowlick that is not seen on the skull x-rays, who erroneously said that the upper-skull fractures radiate from their proposed cowlick entry site when in fact they do not (which also refutes their cowlick entry site), who said the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment, who published altered copies of the skull x-rays to conceal the clear evidence of a frontal-shot cluster of fragments in the front part of the skull, etc., etc. Wow, that's some "authentication."

The FPP's report falsely claimed that the Bethesda descriptions of the large head wound agreed with the autopsy report and disagreed with the Parkland descriptions, a claim that we now know is false. The HSCA sealed all the Bethesda medical interviews, and when the ARRB released those interviews, we learned that the Bethesda descriptions overwhelmingly agree with the Parkland descriptions. We also learned that one of the FPP staffers objected to the report's false claim about the Bethesda descriptions, but the authors of the FPP report (Loquvam and Weston) ignored his objection.

When are you going to beam yourself into at least the mid-2000s and start dealing with the scientific and research developments that began to occur in the case in the mid-1990s? You keep pretending that the HSCA medical interviews have not been released, that three medical doctors have not independently done OD measurements on the skull x-rays, that OD measurements have not proved beyond all doubt that the right-rear white patch on the lateral skull x-rays is manmade, that the Zapruder film was not diverted to two CIA photo labs, that F8's orientation has not been conclusively established, that F8 does not show substantial bone missing from the occiput, that the Harper fragment has not been established as being occipital bone, that the 6.5 mm object has not been proved fake via OD measurements, that photo experts have not identified impossible color shifts in some of the autopsy photos, that the Clark Panel-HSCA cowlick entry wound has been debunked, etc., etc., etc. Have you set your computer's calendar to 1992 or something?


Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: John Mytton on August 14, 2020, 02:23:19 PM
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.

Sorry Griffith but your continued claims that any photos/film which doesn't agree with your Loony Toons conspiracy is "faked" is becoming increasing tedious and not convincing anybody, so far you've got an army of alterationist's making unbelievably impossible photo realistic images and unfortunately for your credibility you haven't yet produced one image/film expert who in any way describes how this fakery was actually accomplished, let alone a demonstration of an actual altered stereoscopic image as an example, your claims are just that, claims based on delusion.

And talk about sticking your head in the sand and openly embracing the last century, you take the cake, the back of head animation requires millions of computer cycles which was unheard of when your "expert" made his self serving observation and the best comeback you've got is the obviously biased Mantik claiming that F3 doesn't show "stereoscopic consistency", unbelievable!

And who are you're going to believe, Mantik with an obvious axe to grind or your own lying eyes? The stereoscopic images when recombined can only show a 100% smooth rotation if each and every hair, skin cell, wrinkle, wound and overall shape displays the exact same depth mapping relatively in each original photo and to suggest that the following graphic is based on images which aren't "stereoscopically consistent" is a physical impossibility because any image alteration would not allow a smooth rotation and would have floating artefacts but as is clear this is not the case, you and your claim is totally bogus. You lose!

(https://i.postimg.cc/HsMbxnZ7/JFKBOHlatest-700.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: John Mytton on August 14, 2020, 02:59:50 PM
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.


Goofy?, you are so far out of your depth that your constant ad homs are your only defence of your complete inability to grasp even the most basic of concepts. As explained in the last post the only way to create a smooth rotation is if all the information which amounts to thousands and thousands of pixels in each stereoscopic image have precisely identical depth mapping in each photo relative to the camera lens and again any anomalies would create floating artefacts but unfortunately for you and your kooky assertions we only see smooth rotation meaning that the originally photographed object possesses solid unaltered dimensions.

(https://i.postimg.cc/TYFh4c7c/JFKAutopsy-Morph.gif)

And as for McClelland's claims, in addition to looking down into a wound which could only be observed if JFK's head was as seen in the officially authenticated autopsy photos, how the heck could he make an accurate observation of a third of Kennedy's brain missing if he only looked into a hole that was a sliver from the side, the only way he could make this determination is if he saw a massive amount of missing skull which exposed the brains intact left hemisphere and the missing brain tissue from the right side as seen in the above animation, to deny this logical deduction is to deny the very fabric of existence.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Fs9xKhN6/Mc-Clellandlooks-down.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 14, 2020, 03:15:57 PM
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 would 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
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: John Mytton on August 14, 2020, 03:26:26 PM
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)

JohnM
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 14, 2020, 04:43:23 PM
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

So even in the statements you quote, McClelland said "I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound." And, needless to say, once JFK was pronounced dead, the doctors in the room had plenty of time to observe JFK's wounds, especially when Father Huber conducted the last rites and then when the nurses began to wash the body, pack the rear head wound with gauze squares, and wrap the head and body in sheets in preparation for placing the body in the casket.

I am still waiting for you guys to deal with the fact that McClelland's WC description of the large head wound and his later drawing of the wound closely agree with the descriptions and diagrams of the wound given/drawn by numerous other witnesses, including those given/drawn by the nurse who packed the large head wound with gauze, by the Secret Service agent who saw the wound for several minutes up-close on the way to the hospital and then again at Bethesda, by the nurse who held a pressure dressing against the wound, by the mortician who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, and by the mortician's assistants who helped him prepare the body for burial, not to mention the descriptions in the 11/22/63 Parkland medical reports.

No rational person is going to buy the "they were all mistaken" argument. That dog just won't hunt when you're talking about multiple witnesses in three different locations who saw the wound up-close, who held the head, who packed the wound, etc., especially when many of them were unaware that others had given similar descriptions.

Finally, regarding Mytton's goofy top-of-head GIF, I repeat the fact that Tom Robinson, the mortician, explained to the ARRB that the top of JFK's head had no visible damage until Humes took a saw to it, and that the damage seen in the top-of-head photos was done by Humes and Boswell before the 8:00 PM autopsy started.

Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 14, 2020, 05:17:29 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/V60gDVrc/Mc-Clellandpoints.gif)

Typical "Mytton".  Sticks an arrow in his preferred location and ignores what the guy's hand is actually doing.

Just like it's typical "Mytton" to claim that a computer generated "rotation" somehow demonstrates anything about the underlying photographs.
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 14, 2020, 05:52:12 PM
So even in the statements you quote, McClelland said "I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound."

Evasive and diversionary. But true to form.

Again, 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 would have to be turned so that the back of the head was upright.

    "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

And, if he's taking about the "rear", it must be the mostly on the right side.

    "He was in terrible shape; the right side of his brain had been
     blown out."
          -- Robert McClelland, 1993
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Chris Bristow on August 15, 2020, 05:11:19 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/V60gDVrc/Mc-Clellandpoints.gif)

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. 
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 15, 2020, 05:32:31 AM
Witnesses to the head wound should be using a good-sized mirror so they can close off a circle accurately
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: John Mytton on August 15, 2020, 08:49:01 AM
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.

Quote
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.

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
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: John Mytton on August 15, 2020, 10:38:33 AM
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
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 15, 2020, 12:38:04 PM
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

Lord Iacoletti the Belittler
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Chris Bristow on August 16, 2020, 06:18:56 AM
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

I find it easy to locate the top of the ear but with the skull I land an inch from where I intended. 
     
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 17, 2020, 03:47:12 PM
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

"Geez Louise" is right: Do you think no one notices that McClelland's hand ends up in the back of his head? Or did you simply not notice this? This is just silly. You constantly pull this nonsense. You post silly GIFs that are either irrelevant or that refute your argument.

Do you just not care that McClelland told the WC, the ARRB, and anyone else who asked him, that the large wound was in the right occipital-parietal area, i.e., the right-rear part of the head?

In numerous interviews, McClelland made it clear that he believed the bullet entered from the front and exited the back of the head. Here are two of them that were video-taped:


(large head wound discussion starts at 33:13)

(large head wound discussion starts at 33:50)

"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.

Why do WC apologists always omit the fact that McClelland also said that one of the autopsy photos he saw at the National Archives showed a visible amount of bone missing from the occipital region? Funny how you guys leave out this key information.

Plus, we don't what autopsy photos McClelland was shown. Several Bethesda witnesses said they saw autopsy photos that showed a large wound in the back of the head. McClelland might have been shown some of those photos. Or, he might have been referring to F8, which shows a sizable amount of bone missing from the occiput.

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:


Quote
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)



Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Ray Mitcham on August 17, 2020, 06:21:24 PM









Plus, we don't what autopsy photos McClelland was shown.

We have only seen the "official" photos.



Quote
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]

The people who took the "official" photos denied that they were the photos they took.
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Ray Mitcham on August 17, 2020, 06:23:03 PM
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
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Louis Earl on August 17, 2020, 07:42:22 PM
This has always reminded me of the story of the blind men describing an elephant. 
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 17, 2020, 10:41:15 PM
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

Indeed, and one of the Parkland doctors was a neurosurgeon (Kemp Clark). Dr. Clark specified in his 11/22/63 report that two wound were noted: "two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. . . ."

The Parkland doctors would have had to be blind not to notice this wound.  Not only did the Parkland doctors not see that wound, but neither did the nurse who held a pressure bandage on the head wound and the nurse who packed the head wound with gauze squares to prepare the body for the casket--both of those nurses said the large head wound was in the "back of the head." In addition, most of the Bethesda witnesses said the large wound was in the back of the head, just as did the Parkland doctors

The mortician and a few others explained that Humes did the damage to the top of the head when he sawed the top of the head. Humes created the top-right "flap" when he sawed JFK's skull.

When the ARRB showed the mortician, Tom Robinson, the top-of-head photos, such as the one you linked, he explained that Humes and Boswell did that damage, that when the body arrived the top of the head did not look like that.

Going back to Dealey Plaza, Clint Hill saw the large head wound for several minutes up-close on the way to the hospital, and he saw the wound again at the Bethesda morgue. Hill consistently said the large wound was in the right-rear part of the head:

"a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head.”

"“The right rear portion of his head was missing."

"There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound…except for the one… in the right rear portion of the head.”


"As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone."

What is so compelling about Hill's account is that he was called to the Bethesda morgue for the express purpose of viewing JFK's body again and that he saw the body after the autopsy while the morticians were preparing the body for placement in the casket. He once again saw the same right-rear head wound:

"At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. Attendants of the Joseph Gawler Mortuary were at this time preparing the body for placement in the casket." (https://www.jfk-online.com/clhill.html)

This is crucial because two of the morticians and others explained that the right-rear head wound was still visible even after the skull had been reconstructed. Notice that Hill mentioned no wound on the top of the skull.
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 19, 2020, 07:35:25 PM
where he ends up is a subconscious attempt to save face and/or just a muscle memory trace of his usual deceptive location.

Says "Mytton" the mindreader.
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 19, 2020, 08:56:54 PM
Quote
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.

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:

Quote
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]. . . .

And here is what Dr. McClelland says, and demonstrates, right after he has viewed the autopsy photos for NOVA:

Quote
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 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.

Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 19, 2020, 09:37:08 PM
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)

While giving his description? Isn't there a voice-over being heard at the moment of your screen grab? Later on McClelland runs his fingers over that area of the head when discussing some scalp tears he theorized had fallen back to there.

Quote
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)

That drawing was published 11 years prior to the NOVA program in the book "Six Seconds in Dallas".

Quote
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.

We're not the only ones that need to do some homework.
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 20, 2020, 01:06:44 PM
Quote
Organ: That drawing was published 11 years prior to the NOVA program in the book "Six Seconds in Dallas".

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?

Quote
Organ: Isn't there a voice-over being heard at the moment of your screen grab?

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.

Quote
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.

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:

Quote
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.

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.

I mean, for crying out loud, how can any honest, rational person believe that the mortician who handled the large head wound, cleaned it, reconstructed it, and packed the remaining part of it with rubber could "mistake" that wound for a wound that was above and forward of the right ear?! Even more surreal, how can anyone really believe that the nurse who cleaned the wound and packed it with gauze squares hours earlier made the same colossal blunder and mistook the wound for a wound that was 4-5 inches away on a different part of the head when she had the EOP and the right ear as reference points?


Demonstrations and diagrams of JFK's head wound:

(https://miketgriffith.com/files/backofheaddemos1.jpg)

(https://miketgriffith.com/files/backofheaddemos2.jpg)
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 20, 2020, 11:10:15 PM
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?
 

I (along with everyone else) missed the part where it was stated the drawing was "approved for NOVA". One might think McClelland somewhat "disapproved" of the drawing when, after viewing the autopsy photos, he said: "there doesn't appear to be any sort of wound in the area where I had drawn the picture that shows the large hole."

Incidentally, McClelland is a little loose with the notion he drew the picture; it was Tink.

Quote
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.

Isn't there something a little misleading when you insert "[holds hand on the right-rear part of his head]" within the McClelland quote when, in fact, his hand goes to his head AFTER the spoken quote was finished and during a voice-over?

Quote
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:
     
Quote
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 did it again. I guess you're not going to stop misleading readers on the McClelland quote.

Quote
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.

When are you going to address this?:

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 would 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://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/headwound/parkland-doctors-demonstrate-head-wound-nova-1988.jpg)

Quote
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.

(https://i.postimg.cc/XN5fLp7m/Clintshowem.gif)

     "I could see the back of his head and there was a gaping
      hole above his right ear about the size of my palm."
           -- Clint Hill
              Inside the U.S. Secret Service
              National Geographic
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 21, 2020, 12:56:28 PM
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:

Quote
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)

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.

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”:


Quote
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)

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:

Quote
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)

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.

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:

Quote
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.

So we have yet another witness who handled the wound and who noted that it was in the back of the head.

Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Michael Walton on August 21, 2020, 02:29:59 PM
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)
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 21, 2020, 02:51:31 PM
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)

What frontal shot?
Can you attach a bullet, rifle and culprit to such a shot?

And your 'bevelling' fails the Blob#Gate test.
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: John Tonkovich on August 21, 2020, 05:53:44 PM
Mr. Griffith:  three shots. From the rear. Three hits. Might want to examine the evidence.
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 21, 2020, 10:25:19 PM
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.

I'm evasive? Here's what Griffith was responding to:

    "I (along with everyone else) missed the part where it was
     stated the drawing was "approved for NOVA".

"Approved for NOVA" is what Griffith placed on his screen capture. And, of course, he could find no claim made by NOVA or Dr. McClelland. In isolation, it doesn't matter much, just an illustration of Griffith's playing loose with the facts.

Quote
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 drawing suggests" doesn't sound too definitive. And all the Parkland doctors, prior to viewing, have their hands much higher up towards the top of the head than the wound location depicted in the drawing.

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.

The sequence that ends with Dr. McClelland saying:

    "There doesn't seem to be any sort of wound in the area
     where I had drawn the picture that showed this large hole."

Earlier in the program, McClelland said the autopsy photos accurately showed what he had seen in 1963.

Quote
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.

That's your answer to this ...

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 would 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

Quote
As for the Clint Hill video clip in Organ's post, which was filmed many years after the fact,

Wow. But it's OK to to believe outlandish tales from particular witnesses who appeared before the ARRB, who made few if any notes or took any photographs, many years after the event, after they had been influenced by conspiracy advocates? Even the ARRB made note of the problem:

    "Finally, a significant problem that is well known to trial lawyers, judges,
     and psychologists, is the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Witnesses
     frequently, and inaccurately, believe that they have a vivid recollection of
     events. Psychologists and scholars have long-since demonstrated the
     serious unreliability of people's recollections of what they hear and see.
     One illustration of this was an interview statement made by one of the
     treating physicians at Parkland. He explained that he was in Trauma
     Room Number 1 with the President. He recounted how he observed the
     First Lady wearing a white dress. Of course, she was wearing a pink suit,
     a fact known to most Americans. The inaccuracy of his recollection
     probably says little about the quality of the doctor's memory, but it is
     revealing of how the memory works and how cautious one must be when
     attempting to evaluate eyewitness testimony.

     The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released
     by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often
     the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves.
     For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to
     have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the
     evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single
     statements as "proof" for one theory or another."

Quote
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.

Official report:

    "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's
     head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely.
     ...
     I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull."

Testimony:

    "The right rear portion of his head was missing.
      ...
     the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head"

Hill uses the term "right rear" in the clip:

(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.
Quote

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.


Are others allowed to disagree?

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_head4-horz.jpg)

Quote
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.

Well the Parkland doctors who went to the National Archives thought they were mistaken about seeing cerebellum.

Dr. Robert Grossman, a neurosurgeon, was with Dr. Clark when they both examined the President's head. Grossman told the "Boston Globe" in 1981:

    "Then it was clear to me that the right parietal bone had been
     lifted up by a bullet which had exited.  That's the only thing
     that will do that, that the right parietal bone was elevated."

When shown the McClelland drawing, Grossman says:

    "I think this is too low ... it's in the wrong place."

Grossman's markings for the Globe:

(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)
 

Quote
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.


Not a valid vimeo URL
It looks to me like Aubrey Rike thought the neck wound was behind the neck collar (that's where his finger first goes to). And that he felt a wound that was well outside the occipital bone area, above the ear level and somewhat on the right side.
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 22, 2020, 12:43:37 AM
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)
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Gerry Down on September 16, 2020, 01:49:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on September 16, 2020, 02:17:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Gerry Down on September 17, 2020, 09:22:26 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.
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on September 20, 2020, 03:47:29 PM
Quote
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.

The x-rays do provide a great deal of information about Kennedy's wounds. They show he was struck by at least two bullets, one coming from the front. They also show that the ammo could not have been FMJ ammo. And, the 6.5 mm object is not a blob: it is a ghosted image that was placed over the image of the small genuine fragment in the back of the head. Dr. Mantik has established this with OD measurements, and has even duplicated how the object was ghosted.
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Joffrey van de Wiel on September 23, 2020, 02:51:02 AM
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.

(https://kennedysandking.com/images/2017/cranor-magic-scalp/photo.png)
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on September 23, 2020, 07:48:47 PM
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. 

* The autopsy report says nothing--not one word--about the 6.5 mm "fragment" clearly seen on the AP skull x-ray. The autopsy doctors swore up and down that they saw no such "fragment" during the autopsy. (Of course, Dr. Mantik has established via OD measurements and stereo viewing that the "fragment" is actually an image that was ghosted over the image of the small, genuine fragment in the back of the head.)
Title: Re: 11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound
Post by: Jerry Organ on September 24, 2020, 12:02:21 AM
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?

    "Roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute metallic fragments along
     a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital
     wound and the right supra-orbital ridge."

Sounds like a trail that's pretty high up. And not starting anywhere near the supposed EOP wound. Only makes sense if the entry wound was where the Clark Panel found it showing on the autopsy photos, at the so-called "cowlick" level. Humes made a mistake in feeling for the EOP, normally easy to locate on a skull not disrupted. But this skull had numerous fracture lines running underneath the scalp that could have produced a bump similar to the EOP.

Quote
* 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 right supra-orbital ridge" sounds pretty high up. Only one "missing" anything is a certain conspiracy theorist//Trump apologist.

Quote
* 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. 

    "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
     involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
     temporal and occipital regions."

Notice the report stated "occipital region," not "occipital bone". Occipital region can include the rear portion of parietal bone.

    "Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to
     radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound
     at the occiput."

Fracture lines travel into the occiput, not missing bone. The "large defect" is "at the vertex. The "smaller wound" is outside the "large defect". Humes (who only felt for the EOP and never exposed it which is why there's no measured vertical distance from it to the entry wound) thought the entry wound was in the "occiput". But it was actually higher in the rear portion of the right parietal bone, according to the Clark Panel and HSCA, and the autopsy photos.