• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
pakeha wrote:
Posts: 3,720http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm

Were the doctors lying here, Robert?

The four selected doctors claim what they saw of the autopsy photos on the Nova program was consistent with what they saw at Parkland. So what did they say they observed at Parkland???


MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD
: In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), 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." (WC--Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, "Part of the brain was herniated. I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..." (WC--V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit, "...the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit..." (WC--V6:51.)

PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician at Parkland described the head wound to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter under oath as, "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)

When shown enlarged Zapruder film frames depicting a right-anterior wound, Peters wrote, "The wound which you marked...I never saw and I don't think there was such a wound. I think that was simply an artifact of copying Zapruder's movie... The only wound I saw on President Kennedy's head was in the occipitoparietal area on the right side." (Personal letter to Wallace Milam 4-14-80, copy, courtesy of Wallace Milam to author Aguilar; also in Lifton, BE: 557)

When shown by author Livingstone the HSCA's Dox drawings of the rear of JFK's skull prepared to precisely replicate the photographs, Peters claimed, "Well, this is an artist's drawing, and I don't think that it's consistent with what I saw...

ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, "...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...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...." (WC--V6:33) Later he said, "...unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy's life) were of no avail." (Emphasis added throughout) (WC--V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, "...massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss." (WC--V6:34)

“Nova”, 11/15/88 (see still photo in “Killing The Truth”)---before AND after
viewing the official photos, McClelland places his hand on the right rear area
of his head where he saw the wound on JFK and “speculates” that a large
flap of skin is obscuring the large wound in the official photos


A)“Conspiracy” by Anthony Summers (paperback, 1989), pp. 484-486
(interviewed McClelland in 1989)---“I don’t think they were trying to cover up
the fact that there was a large hole…but that’s what they were doing…they
were covering up that great defect in the back and lateral part of the head by pulling that loose scalp flap up.
You can see the hand pulling the scalp forward [in the autopsy photo; this is what McClelland said, more or less, on
“Nova”]”; “Dr. McClelland says the ‘great defect in the back’ IS visible on
some photographs amongst the FULL set of some fifty pictures he saw at the
National Archives”; B) 8/29/89 letter to Joanne Braun (“The Third Decade”,
March 1991)---sees nothing to be concerned about re: the incision(s) that
appear in the official autopsy photos;
q) “Inside Edition”, June 1989---McClelland “says the x-rays do not show the
same injuries to the President’s head that he saw in the emergency room…I
think he was shot from the front…” [see “Conspiracy”, pp. 485-486];

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part1.pdf

RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident at Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination. He appeared before the Commission and claimed only, "...he had a large head wound---that was the first thing I noticed." Arlen Specter did not ask him to elaborate and Dulaney did not volunteer any additional details.(WC-V:114).

So what photos were shown? We don't really know because the public was not allowed to see them even on the Nova show. But the denials of those who actually took the alleged original autopsy photos and developed them must be weighed as evidence as well:

* Floyd Riebe, one of the two autopsy photographers, has stated that he did NOT take ANY of the photos in evidence. The other photographer, James Stringer, stated in a taped interview that he did NOT take the photos of the back of the head, which show that area intact, contrary to the testimony of literally dozens of credible witnesses. Who, then, took the back-of-the-head pictures?


A sworn interview with Saundra Kay Spencer, who developed the JFK autopsy photos, in which she declared that the photos in the Archives are not the ones she developed. Autopsy photographer John Stringer similarly disavowed the supplemental autopsy brain photographs.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/JFK_Assassination
 
Last edited:
The four selected doctors claim what they saw of the autopsy photos on the Nova program was consistent with what they saw at Parkland. So what did they say they observed at Parkland???

MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD
: In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), 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." (WC--Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, "Part of the brain was herniated. I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..." (WC--V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit, "...the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit..." (WC--V6:51.)

PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician at Parkland described the head wound to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter under oath as, "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)

When shown enlarged Zapruder film frames depicting a right-anterior wound, Peters wrote, "The wound which you marked...I never saw and I don't think there was such a wound. I think that was simply an artifact of copying Zapruder's movie... The only wound I saw on President Kennedy's head was in the occipitoparietal area on the right side." (Personal letter to Wallace Milam 4-14-80, copy, courtesy of Wallace Milam to author Aguilar; also in Lifton, BE: 557)

When shown by author Livingstone the HSCA's Dox drawings of the rear of JFK's skull prepared to precisely replicate the photographs, Peters claimed, "Well, this is an artist's drawing, and I don't think that it's consistent with what I saw...

ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, "...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...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...." (WC--V6:33) Later he said, "...unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy's life) were of no avail." (Emphasis added throughout) (WC--V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, "...massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss." (WC--V6:34)

“Nova”, 11/15/88 (see still photo in “Killing The Truth”)---before AND after
viewing the official photos, McClelland places his hand on the right rear area
of his head where he saw the wound on JFK and “speculates” that a large
flap of skin is obscuring the large wound in the official photos


A)“Conspiracy” by Anthony Summers (paperback, 1989), pp. 484-486
(interviewed McClelland in 1989)---“I don’t think they were trying to cover up
the fact that there was a large hole…but that’s what they were doing…they
were covering up that great defect in the back and lateral part of the head by pulling that loose scalp flap up.
You can see the hand pulling the scalp forward [in the autopsy photo; this is what McClelland said, more or less, on
“Nova”]”; “Dr. McClelland says the ‘great defect in the back’ IS visible on
some photographs amongst the FULL set of some fifty pictures he saw at the
National Archives”; B) 8/29/89 letter to Joanne Braun (“The Third Decade”,
March 1991)---sees nothing to be concerned about re: the incision(s) that
appear in the official autopsy photos;
q) “Inside Edition”, June 1989---McClelland “says the x-rays do not show the
same injuries to the President’s head that he saw in the emergency room…I
think he was shot from the front…” [see “Conspiracy”, pp. 485-486];

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part1.pdf

RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident at Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination. He appeared before the Commission and claimed only, "...he had a large head wound---that was the first thing I noticed." Arlen Specter did not ask him to elaborate and Dulaney did not volunteer any additional details.(WC-V:114).

So what photos were shown? We don't really know because the public was not allowed to see them even on the Nova show. But the denials of those who actually took the alleged original autopsy photos and developed them must be weighed as evidence as well:

* Floyd Riebe, one of the two autopsy photographers, has stated that did NOT take ANY of the photos in evidence. The other photographer, James Stringer, stated in a taped interview that he did NOT take the photos of the back of the head, which show that area intact, contrary to the testimony of literally dozens of credible witnesses. Who, then, took the back-of-the-head pictures?


A sworn interview with Saundra Kay Spencer, who developed the JFK autopsy photos, in which she declared that the photos in the Archives are not the ones she developed. Autopsy photographer John Stringer similarly disavowed the supplemental autopsy brain photographs.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/JFK_Assassination


So to sumarise: there was a large defect, like an entry wound in the back of the head. A large defect on the temporal region. Like an exit wound.

If Robert wants us to believe otherwise he can supply physical evidence. Repeating the same quotes over and again, while being reminded they are just subjective memories wastes everybodies time and convinces nobody. We know this as if it convinced us it wouldhave done so the last time this cycle went around...
 
Robert, why do you still believe a shooter killed Kennedy with a shot from the grassy knoll?
All your evidence of an exit wound on the back right side of Kennedys head makes a shooter from the right an impossibility.
 
So to sumarise: there was a large defect, like an entry wound in the back of the head. A large defect on the temporal region. Like an exit wound.

If Robert wants us to believe otherwise he can supply physical evidence. Repeating the same quotes over and again, while being reminded they are just subjective memories wastes everybodies time and convinces nobody. We know this as if it convinced us it wouldhave done so the last time this cycle went around...

The physical evidence has been worm food for 50 years and your ridiculous mantras regarding "physical evidence" deserve the same fate until you yourself can produce some.
 
A shot to the right temple logically travels to the right rear.
'Logically'? What 'logic', exactly?

Sadly, none of the "experts" on the HSCA photo panel ever attempted to replicate any of them.
Because they didn't need to. Robert, do you accept the phenomenon of a lunar eclipse, or do you need to see the theory replicated before you'll believe it?

The statement of a witness by itself is evidence.
Sure, but notoriously unreliable, generally.

Why don't you stick to the evaluating the evidence rather than attacking the messenger whether in the form of a person or a book or a Report?????
Robert, do you not understand the meaning of 'messenger'? It's very different from 'author'!

Science does not assume anything. Without replication, all you have is speculation.
So you deny that lunar eclipses are proven, then. And the Earth? Round or flat, Robert (or should I say round or square?! :D).

None of the first three have been replicated.
So you missed the Obama photos post, then?!

Forty plus medical eyewitnesses observing the head wounds of the President of the United States have never, in general, over the years, been shown to be unreliable.
By who's reckoning, Robert?! :rolleyes:
 
The physical evidence has been worm food for 50 years and your ridiculous mantras regarding "physical evidence" deserve the same fate until you yourself can produce some.

No, because the burden of proof is on you.

Besides, it HAS been produced. You may dismiss it, but you have yet to invalidate it.
 
Argumentum ad nuh uhum.

Robert can't validate his arguments (but we should just believe them anyway)?

And any pesky materials that seem to validate the null? Well, they have to be forged, altered, whitewashed or brainwashed. Because otherwise he would be... wrong.

Anybody sensible might stop repeating assertions they can't validate instead of playing a game of "Well this SHOULD count as evidence because I say so!"
 
RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident at Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination. He appeared before the Commission and claimed only, "...he had a large head wound---that was the first thing I noticed." Arlen Specter did not ask him to elaborate and Dulaney did not volunteer any additional details.(WC-V:114).


So why are you counting him as a conspiracy / back-of-head witness?
 
Robert, since the moon appears as a different shape every night, does that mean that the moon's shape physically changes every night? Since most eyewitnesses to the Titanic disaster saw the ship sink in one piece, did it?
 
Your claims that evidence has been planted, altered, forged, etc have not been validated. Therefore the physical evidence still stands, and still invalidates any witness statement.

Your so-called "Physical Evidence" has all the validity of "The Hitler Diaries" -- all the veracity of the brainwash spewed forth through Obama's false teeth.
 
Prove they are fake.

35-year old recollections don't cut it here.

But that is all you have, correct?

Hank

Another sophomoric challenge. Show me the original autopsy photos and then we'll see if the ones in the Archives are fake. Can you do that? Of course you can't.
 
Another sophomoric challenge. Show me the original autopsy photos and then we'll see if the ones in the Archives are fake. Can you do that? Of course you can't.


The original ones are the ones all over the net. You cannot prove your claim that the extant autopsy photos are faked in any way.

I remind you that the HSCA validated the autopsy x-rays and photos in a number of different ways. They agree with each other, and with the Zapruder film in the damage they show.

You must prove they are faked; not just assume it, Robert.

Hank
 
A ridiculous question. Dulaney is one of the 4 selected doctors your guru McAdams named.


You already told us McAdams site is garbage. So why are you citing anything there?

This is what you said about Dulaney thus far:

...RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident at Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination. He appeared before the Commission and claimed only, "...he had a large head wound---that was the first thing I noticed." Arlen Specter did not ask him to elaborate and Dulaney did not volunteer any additional details.(WC-V:114).

I'll ask again, why are you counting him as a back-of-the head witness? Perhaps this time you will answer without citing a person & a website you already claimed you don't trust.

Hank
 
Another sophomoric challenge. Show me the original autopsy photos and then we'll see if the ones in the Archives are fake. Can you do that? Of course you can't.

Asking you to prove your assertions is sophomoric? It's no wonder you can't figure anything out.


Robert, since the moon appears as a different shape every night, does that mean that the moon's shape physically changes every night? Since most eyewitnesses to the Titanic disaster saw the ship sink in one piece, did it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom