McClelland a "Back of the Head" witness?

[John McAdams]

Conspiracists have long considered Dr. Robert McClelland a "back of
the head witness" whose account of Kennedy's head wound supports the
notion of a shot hitting Kennedy from the front.

But in a recent speech to a Rotary Club, he said:

"He was in terrible shape; the right side of his brain had been blown
out,"

http://m.scntx.com/articles/2012/01/28/mckinney_courier-gazette/news/9270.txt

Since most of the speech has McClelland pushing conspiracy theories
(based on things of which he has no personal knowledge) it's hard to
claim he somehow has been intimidated into changing his testimony.

Tony Marsh, am I correct that you have a screen capture of the drawing
of the wound he made for "The Men Who Killed Kennedy?"

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[OHLeeRedux]

Emergency room physicians are not pathologists. Their job is to try and
save lives, not to make forensic examinations of gunshot victims.

What McClleland and the other Parkland doctors saw was the President of
the United States with brains and blood matted in his thick hair on the
right side of his head, perfectly consistent with the Z-film and the
autopsy findings.

The Bethesda doctors had to peel back the loose scalp and hair to see
exactly where the wounds were, something the Parkland doctors, in their
own words, "did not have the heart to do."

[Robert Harris]

John McAdams wrote:
> Conspiracists have long considered Dr. Robert McClelland a "back of
> the head witness" whose account of Kennedy's head wound supports the
> notion of a shot hitting Kennedy from the front.

It doesn't matter what McClelland said because you and I are infinitely
better witnesses. He got a glimpse of the BOH but we can see the damage
clearly in the Zapruder film and spend as much time as we like, studying it.

http://jfkhistory.com/337.jpg

This video goes into greater detail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXglIRrg3Kg

and finally, this video address mcadams ridiculous claim that the BOH
damage was some kind of illusion which was only visible in that one frame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTvl9J0Hzwo


Robert Harris

[OHLeeRedux]

Robert,

I looked at your video, and what I see is a head wound on the right side
of JFK's head, just as the autopsy describes, consistent wih an exit wound
resulting from a shot from behind. The "protrusion" on the back of the
head looks like hair rising up, clearly the result of the impact of a
bullet. No blood or brain matter on the back of the head, as you would
expect to see on a large exit wound.

By the way, do you play that guitar?

[mainframetech]

I wonder if he made that statement after seeing the X-rays of the
damage to the top and side of the head that Humes and Boswell did,
thinking that was the way it was beforehand. Robinson saw them at it and
commented that they did some of it themselves when they were removing the
brain and supposedly searching for bullet fragments. Of course, such
searching would have been better done with X-rays, but they had dismissed
all assistants from the morgue area and had to do it themselves, a change
from the normal process. At 8:00pm, the 'official' time for the autopsy,
when everyone was now in the morgue room, Sibert reported that they
noticed that surgery had been done to the head. Almost no one had been
around earlier when they did the removal of the brain and other things to
the head that Robinson saw.

The right side of the head was NOT as damaged as was said, but might have
convinced McClelland after the damage was done at Bethesda.

We must remember that the article in question also quoted McClelland as
saying he still believed it was a conspiracy with more than one shooter,
and he didn't seem sure that Oswald was one of those shooters.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Who said that? Is there any backup to that statement? And many of the
40 or more people that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH saw it without
peeling back ANY flap of scalp.

Robinson (mortician) was able to itemize the head wounds without
resorting to peeling back anything. Including the .25 inch entry wound in
the right forehead.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Of course, using the Z-film for a resource is not wise as it is under
suspicion of being modified to fool folks. And the technicians have
decided the modified parts include the frame 313 and further to frame 337,
and others.

Where in that film does it show the swaying of all passengers of the
limo at once when the driver braked for a moment? Here, scroll down to
the 6th gif to see it happen:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/fast.html

Seeing is believing...:)

Chris

[David Von Pein]

I've always wondered how Dr. McClelland could have possibly "looked
straight down into the wound" on the BACK of JFK's head when McClelland
was standing directly over the top of JFK (who was FACE UP) when he was
being treated at Parkland. Impossible.

Logically, given the position of the President on the stretcher and the
location of McClelland during the treatment of JFK at Parkland, if
McClelland was "looking down into the wound", he HAD to be viewing a wound
on the FRONTAL (or SIDE) part of Kennedy's head--not a wound in the very
BACK of his head.

Naturally, in all the many interviews that McClelland has given over the
years (including the one linked below), nobody has ever once asked the
doctor to explain this "looking down into the wound" discrepancy that
would certainly seem to exist in McClelland's testimony.

A 2009 McClelland interview:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/robert-mcclelland.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/25/2013 10:27 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> I've always wondered how Dr. McClelland could have possibly "looked
> straight down into the wound" on the BACK of JFK's head when McClelland
> was standing directly over the top of JFK (who was FACE UP) when he was
> being treated at Parkland. Impossible.
>
> Logically, given the position of the President on the stretcher and the
> location of McClelland during the treatment of JFK at Parkland, if
> McClelland was "looking down into the wound", he HAD to be viewing a wound
> on the FRONTAL (or SIDE) part of Kennedy's head--not a wound in the very
> BACK of his head.

Ever hear of the TOP of the head? Where Humes and Boswell marked a huge
wound? Or are they part of your massive conspiracy?

>
> Naturally, in all the many interviews that McClelland has given over the
> years (including the one linked below), nobody has ever once asked the
> doctor to explain this "looking down into the wound" discrepancy that
> would certainly seem to exist in McClelland's testimony.
>

As far as you know, not being a researcher.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

While I agree that McClelland is not much of a "back of the head" witness,
I base this on his earliest statements, and not on this article. His
statement that the right side of the brain was blown out is completely
consistent with his latter day belief a bullet entered the right front of
Kennedy's head and exited from the rear.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/25/2013 9:03 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 1:36:00 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> Conspiracists have long considered Dr. Robert McClelland a "back of
>>
>> the head witness" whose account of Kennedy's head wound supports the
>>
>> notion of a shot hitting Kennedy from the front.
>>
>>
>>
>> But in a recent speech to a Rotary Club, he said:
>>
>>
>>
>> "He was in terrible shape; the right side of his brain had been blown
>>
>> out,"
>>
>>
>>
>> http://m.scntx.com/articles/2012/01/28/mckinney_courier-gazette/news/9270.txt
>>
>>
>>
>> Since most of the speech has McClelland pushing conspiracy theories
>>
>> (based on things of which he has no personal knowledge) it's hard to
>>
>> claim he somehow has been intimidated into changing his testimony.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tony Marsh, am I correct that you have a screen capture of the drawing
>>
>> of the wound he made for "The Men Who Killed Kennedy?"
>>
>>
>>
>> .John
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> I wonder if he made that statement after seeing the X-rays of the
> damage to the top and side of the head that Humes and Boswell did,

McClelland made comment about what his initial impression was when he
saw the President in the trauma room.

[John McAdams]

On 26 Sep 2013 15:50:15 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:36:00 AM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>> Conspiracists have long considered Dr. Robert McClelland a "back of

>>=20

>> the head witness" whose account of Kennedy's head wound supports the
>

>While I agree that McClelland is not much of a "back of the head" witness,
>I base this on his earliest statements, and not on this article. His
>statement that the right side of the brain was blown out is completely
>consistent with his latter day belief a bullet entered the right front of
>Kennedy's head and exited from the rear.
>

You are correct about that, although it's clear he has become a
"buff." That is to say, a lot of what he believes is what he has read
and heard from conspiracy sources, and less and less is based on what
he actually experienced.

But Pat, since you are here, how about posting that video that
supposedly shows that Baden misoriented the F8 photo before the HSCA.

You did a while ago, but the link does not work now.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:27:03 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> I've always wondered how Dr. McClelland could have possibly "looked
>
> straight down into the wound" on the BACK of JFK's head when McClelland
>
> was standing directly over the top of JFK (who was FACE UP) when he was
>
> being treated at Parkland. Impossible.
>
>
>
> Logically, given the position of the President on the stretcher and the
>
> location of McClelland during the treatment of JFK at Parkland, if
>
> McClelland was "looking down into the wound", he HAD to be viewing a wound
>
> on the FRONTAL (or SIDE) part of Kennedy's head--not a wound in the very
>
> BACK of his head.
>

If during examination he turned the head to the left, then the wound
should have been plenty accessible to see into it at an angle.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

TONY MARSH SAID:

Ever hear of the TOP of the head?

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Sure. And the TOP of JFK's head was, indeed, badly damaged. But what's
that got to do with McClelland always insisting in most of his past
interviews that he was looking "down" into a wound that was (somehow)
located at the BACK of Kennedy's head?

AFAIK, McClelland never said he thought the wound was at the TOP of the
head. He always said BACK (right-rear-occipital). Just watch the 1988 NOVA
video and see where he places his hand to simulate where he says the wound
was. It's not the TOP of the head. It's here....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-51Fq1IsiCTk/UkSV-TTG7DI/AAAAAAAAv10/yzJidjWv5T8/s1600/McClelland.png

1988 McCLELLAND VIDEO:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

[claviger]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:04:16 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:29:04 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>
> > Emergency room physicians are not pathologists. Their
> > job is to try and save lives, not to make forensic
> > examinations of gunshot victims.
>
> > What McClleland and the other Parkland doctors saw
> > was the President of the United States with brains
> > and blood matted in his thick hair on the right side
> > of his head, perfectly consistent with the Z-film and > > the autopsy findings.
>
> > The Bethesda doctors had to peel back the loose scalp > > and hair to see exactly where the wounds were,
> > something the Parkland doctors, in their
> > own words, "did not have the heart to do."
>
> Who said that? Is there any backup to that statement? > And many of the 40 or more people that saw the 'large
> hole' in the BOH saw it without peeling back ANY flap
> of scalp.

Which would have been impossible if the wound was low on the back of the
head where McClelland indicated, as in the drawing he approved. In 1988
he realized his mistake after looking at the X-rays for the first time.

> Robinson (mortician) was able to itemize the head
> wounds without resorting to peeling back anything.
> Including the .25 inch entry wound in the right
> forehead.

Which he considered a shrapnel wound, not a bullet wound. The first missed
shot sprayed the President with fragments on the back and right side of
his face. He was turned to the right waving at Mary Woodward's group of
ladies when the first shot was heard by them.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/25/2013 1:36 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> Conspiracists have long considered Dr. Robert McClelland a "back of
> the head witness" whose account of Kennedy's head wound supports the
> notion of a shot hitting Kennedy from the front.
>
> But in a recent speech to a Rotary Club, he said:
>
> "He was in terrible shape; the right side of his brain had been blown
> out,"
>
> http://m.scntx.com/articles/2012/01/28/mckinney_courier-gazette/news/9270.txt
>
> Since most of the speech has McClelland pushing conspiracy theories
> (based on things of which he has no personal knowledge) it's hard to
> claim he somehow has been intimidated into changing his testimony.
>
> Tony Marsh, am I correct that you have a screen capture of the drawing
> of the wound he made for "The Men Who Killed Kennedy?"
>

That's not exactly correct. McClelland did not make the drawing. He
draws a line on a drawing of the head wound that the producers gave him
to show the extent of the wound on the right side of the head.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/McClelland.jpg

Compare that to the original WC diagram.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce386.jpg

[Anthony Marsh]

Some people believe that. They assert that a massive hole on the head
indicates where the bullet entered. What they don't understand is the
concept of a tangential wound. The autopsy doctors described JFK's head
wound as a tangential wound. But there are some cases where the massive
blowout IS the entrance wound. This is most often seen with CONTACT
wounds such as gangland executions.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/26/2013 6:09 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
> Ever hear of the TOP of the head?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Sure. And the TOP of JFK's head was, indeed, badly damaged. But what's
> that got to do with McClelland always insisting in most of his past
> interviews that he was looking "down" into a wound that was (somehow)
> located at the BACK of Kennedy's head?
>
> AFAIK, McClelland never said he thought the wound was at the TOP of the
> head. He always said BACK (right-rear-occipital). Just watch the 1988 NOVA
> video and see where he places his hand to simulate where he says the wound
> was. It's not the TOP of the head. It's here....
>

How many times have I said to never rely on witnesses? Do I have say it
a billion times?

McClelland was not a good witness.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:29:46 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/25/2013 10:27 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > I've always wondered how Dr. McClelland could have possibly "looked
>
> > straight down into the wound" on the BACK of JFK's head when McClelland
>
> > was standing directly over the top of JFK (who was FACE UP) when he was
>
> > being treated at Parkland. Impossible.
>
> >
>
> > Logically, given the position of the President on the stretcher and the
>
> > location of McClelland during the treatment of JFK at Parkland, if
>
> > McClelland was "looking down into the wound", he HAD to be viewing a wound
>
> > on the FRONTAL (or SIDE) part of Kennedy's head--not a wound in the very
>
> > BACK of his head.
>
>
>
> Ever hear of the TOP of the head? Where Humes and Boswell marked a huge
>
> wound? Or are they part of your massive conspiracy?
>

Hmm. They came a bit later than McClelland. Like at Bethesda, not
Parkland where McClelland was working. And the 'huge' wound on the top
and side of the head was made by them, also later than Parkland.

>
>
> >
>
> > Naturally, in all the many interviews that McClelland has given over the
>
> > years (including the one linked below), nobody has ever once asked the
>
> > doctor to explain this "looking down into the wound" discrepancy that
>
> > would certainly seem to exist in McClelland's testimony.
>
> >
>
>
>
> As far as you know, not being a researcher.
>

Simple. The turning of the head to the left would open the 'large hole'
at the BOH, which was more on the right side of the BOH. At an angle, one
could see into the skull in that position. Bending down would also help
visual access.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Yes, and that is corroborated by Tom Robinson and Malcolm Kilduff:
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/Kilduff.jpg


Chris

[mainframetech]

DVP is correct for once. The placement of McClelland's hand is clear,
and is also the most stated approximate position by the Parkland staff.
The right rear. Here are a few others that do the same thing as
McClelland, just scroll down halfway:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=3930.0

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:05:15 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:04:16 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:29:04 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Emergency room physicians are not pathologists. Their
>
> > > job is to try and save lives, not to make forensic
>
> > > examinations of gunshot victims.
>

ER physicians are physicians. Therefore they can recognize a 'large
hole' in the BOH of a patient. You and I are not sewer workers, but we
know a manhole cover when we see one.

> >
>
> > > What McClleland and the other Parkland doctors saw
>
> > > was the President of the United States with brains
>
> > > and blood matted in his thick hair on the right side
>
> > > of his head, perfectly consistent with the Z-film and > > the autopsy findings.
>
> >
>
> > > The Bethesda doctors had to peel back the loose scalp > > and hair to see exactly where the wounds were,
>
> > > something the Parkland doctors, in their
>
> > > own words, "did not have the heart to do."
>
> >
>
> > Who said that? Is there any backup to that statement? > And many of the 40 or more people that saw the 'large
>
> > hole' in the BOH saw it without peeling back ANY flap
>
> > of scalp.
>

I had asked for backup for that statement above, but none was
forthcoming, and given testimony I've encountered myself, I have to ignore
that comment that a flap was necessary to be moved to view the 'large
hole' that over 40 people saw without raising ANY flap.

>
>
> Which would have been impossible if the wound was low on the back of the
>
> head where McClelland indicated, as in the drawing he approved. In 1988
>
> he realized his mistake after looking at the X-rays for the first time.
>

Simply turning the head to the patient's left (perhaps during a quick
exam) would show the wound that more on the right side than centered, as
per statements of medical staff. Bending down would facilitate visual
access as well, and even allow a view into the skull if the hole were big
enough.

>
>
> > Robinson (mortician) was able to itemize the head
>
> > wounds without resorting to peeling back anything.
>
> > Including the .25 inch entry wound in the right
>

> > forehead, as well as the 'large hole' in the BOH. See his drawing here:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4

>
>
>
> Which he considered a shrapnel wound, not a bullet wound. The first missed
>
> shot sprayed the President with fragments on the back and right side of
>
> his face. He was turned to the right waving at Mary Woodward's group of
>
> ladies when the first shot was heard by them.

Robinson's belief of what the .25 diameter entry wound was not used,
since bullet wounds weren't his specialty. The description he gives is
good enough to know that the diameter of the hole in the right forehead is
just right for a bullet from a rifle, and of course, we have the 'large
hole' in the rear of the head, all fitting together very nicely to make
the kill shot one from the front, meaning probably the GK.

And please note that Robinson did NOT have to flip a flap to identify
the 'large hole' in the BOH. See his drawing above.

Chris

[Robert Harris]

Apparently, you are not looking at the same head that I am.

Do you understand why hair that was present in the forward part of the
head is present in frame 317 but not in 337?

And do you understand why a section in the center of the top of the head
is shallower than the section in front of and behind it?

This annotated image should be helpful to you.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage_files/5.jpg

And this brief article.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html




Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

Got a picture to prove it? Mo.

A 'large hole' in the BOH can also prove a bullet from the front, and
there is an entry wound in the right forehead .25 inches in diameter,
which would make a perfect beginning for the 'large hole' as an ending.
Goes in small, comes out large. Sometimes happens with bullets.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:35:22 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/26/2013 6:09 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > TONY MARSH SAID:
>
> >
>
> > Ever hear of the TOP of the head?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> >
>
> > Sure. And the TOP of JFK's head was, indeed, badly damaged. But what's
>
> > that got to do with McClelland always insisting in most of his past
>
> > interviews that he was looking "down" into a wound that was (somehow)
>
> > located at the BACK of Kennedy's head?
>
> >
>
> > AFAIK, McClelland never said he thought the wound was at the TOP of the
>
> > head. He always said BACK (right-rear-occipital). Just watch the 1988 NOVA
>
> > video and see where he places his hand to simulate where he says the wound
>
> > was. It's not the TOP of the head. It's here....
>
> >
>
>
>
> How many times have I said to never rely on witnesses? Do I have say it
>
> a billion times?
>
>
>
> McClelland was not a good witness.
>

Do you believe anything said by the prosectors that did 2 or more
operations on the body? Do you believe the Dallas PD that they found a
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and not a Mauser? All witnesses. In fact, you
believe many witnesses, except the ones that prove something you don't
like. Much of what you know is from statements of witnesses, and that
includes descriptions of various items of evidence.

Chris

[Robert Harris]

mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:29:40 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> John McAdams wrote:
>>
>>> Conspiracists have long considered Dr. Robert McClelland a "back of
>>
>>> the head witness" whose account of Kennedy's head wound supports the
>>
>>> notion of a shot hitting Kennedy from the front.
>>
>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter what McClelland said because you and I are infinitely
>>
>> better witnesses. He got a glimpse of the BOH but we can see the damage
>>
>> clearly in the Zapruder film and spend as much time as we like, studying it.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/337.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>> This video goes into greater detail.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXglIRrg3Kg
>>
>>
>>
>> and finally, this video address mcadams ridiculous claim that the BOH
>>
>> damage was some kind of illusion which was only visible in that one frame.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTvl9J0Hzwo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
>
> Of course, using the Z-film for a resource is not wise as it is under
> suspicion of being modified to fool folks.

Uh huh. And what exactly was the motive of the perps for drawing in a
massive protrusion in the BOH?

> And the technicians have
> decided the modified parts include the frame 313 and further to frame 337,
> and others.

There were NO "modified parts". The notion that the film was altered is
idiotic.

The Zfilm synchronizes perfectly with all the other films that day
including Bronson's which never left his possession until after he died,
decades later.

His film shows continuous motion of the limo from the equivalent of
about Z300 to well beyond the fatal head shot. How did they alter that film?

It's ridiculous enough to claim that the CIA altered Zapruder, Nix and
Muchmore to make them all match but how did they do the same to
Bronson's film?

Just getting them to synchronize without the use of computers would have
been an hellatious task, but not nearly as difficult as the alterations
themselves, which based on most of these theories would require a
complete fabrication with actors and a false DP set.

Years ago I challenged the alterationists in the Ed forum to take an old
movie camera and shoot some footage in DP (or anywhere else) and then,
using 1963 technology, make the kind of alterations that they claim were
done to the Zfilm.

Of course, there were no takers. And to this day, NO ONE has produced an
altered movie which demonstrates that this stuff is even possible.

Take a look at some old film sometime and then tell me how you would go
about adding in a large protrusion behind JFK's head. Seriously - do it
and let me know how you would tackle the project.




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
> Ever hear of the TOP of the head?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Sure. And the TOP of JFK's head was, indeed, badly damaged. But what's
> that got to do with McClelland always insisting in most of his past
> interviews that he was looking "down" into a wound that was (somehow)
> located at the BACK of Kennedy's head?

LOL!! "somehow"?

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage_files/5.jpg


Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/27/2013 4:56 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:35:22 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 9/26/2013 6:09 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>> TONY MARSH SAID:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Ever hear of the TOP of the head?
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Sure. And the TOP of JFK's head was, indeed, badly damaged. But what's
>>
>>> that got to do with McClelland always insisting in most of his past
>>
>>> interviews that he was looking "down" into a wound that was (somehow)
>>
>>> located at the BACK of Kennedy's head?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> AFAIK, McClelland never said he thought the wound was at the TOP of the
>>
>>> head. He always said BACK (right-rear-occipital). Just watch the 1988 NOVA
>>
>>> video and see where he places his hand to simulate where he says the wound
>>
>>> was. It's not the TOP of the head. It's here....
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How many times have I said to never rely on witnesses? Do I have say it
>>
>> a billion times?
>>
>>
>>
>> McClelland was not a good witness.
>>
> Do you believe anything said by the prosectors that did 2 or more
> operations on the body? Do you believe the Dallas PD that they found a

Try to focus and form coherent questions.

> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and not a Mauser? All witnesses. In fact, you
> believe many witnesses, except the ones that prove something you don't
> like. Much of what you know is from statements of witnesses, and that
> includes descriptions of various items of evidence.
>

I believe many witnesses. I do not rely on any.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I doesn't have to. Sometimes bullets don't exit.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/27/2013 4:50 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:05:15 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:04:16 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:29:04 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Emergency room physicians are not pathologists. Their
>>
>>>> job is to try and save lives, not to make forensic
>>
>>>> examinations of gunshot victims.
>>
>
> ER physicians are physicians. Therefore they can recognize a 'large
> hole' in the BOH of a patient. You and I are not sewer workers, but we
> know a manhole cover when we see one.
>

But they are wrong about half the time.

[mainframetech]

Mote that some staff at Parkland stated clearly that the top of head had
NO damage before the body left Parkland. Mainly the 'large hole' at the
BOH was seen. This was mentioned by Nurse Audrey Bell and Dr. Crenshaw.

From: http://www.jfklancer.com/Backes.html

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, September 27, 2013 4:58:25 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:29:40 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >> John McAdams wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Conspiracists have long considered Dr. Robert McClelland a "back of
>
> >>
>
> >>> the head witness" whose account of Kennedy's head wound supports the
>
> >>
>
> >>> notion of a shot hitting Kennedy from the front.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It doesn't matter what McClelland said because you and I are infinitely
>
> >>
>
> >> better witnesses. He got a glimpse of the BOH but we can see the damage
>
> >>
>
> >> clearly in the Zapruder film and spend as much time as we like, studying it.
>
> >>

not if it has been altered to fool researchers. Then the only
conclusions that folks come to will be those they're supposed to come to.

>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://jfkhistory.com/337.jpg
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> This video goes into greater detail.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXglIRrg3Kg
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> and finally, this video address mcadams ridiculous claim that the BOH
>
> >>
>
> >> damage was some kind of illusion which was only visible in that one frame.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTvl9J0Hzwo
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Robert Harris
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Of course, using the Z-film for a resource is not wise as it is under
>
> > suspicion of being modified to fool folks.
>
>
>
> Uh huh. And what exactly was the motive of the perps for drawing in a
>
> massive protrusion in the BOH?
>

Sorry. I didn't see that. Interpretations may differ. I can't see
any perpetrators doing that because t would draw attention. Would flying
hair give that impression?

>
>
> > And the technicians have
>
> > decided the modified parts include the frame 313 and further to frame 337,
>
> > and others.
>
>
>
> There were NO "modified parts". The notion that the film was altered is
>
> idiotic.
>

Interesting that you feel that my thinking is "idiotic". I don't agree.
I think your thinking is closed and unable to take on new information.
Check out Horne on the alteration of the film. He made an excellent case
for it in his volume 4 of the 5 volume set on the ARRB information. He
dealt extensively with the Z-film and showed the high suspicion that it
had been altered. The original film was processed in Dallas, yet it was
taken to the Secret 'Hawkeye Works' film processing lab in Rochester, NY.
That is known because a courier (Bill Smith) that carried it accidentally
said the name. One fellow that saw that lab said it was the single most
well equipped film lab anywhere that he'd seen or heard of, and they could
do 'anything' there. Now why go to that special 'secret lab just to make
copies and briefing boards? As well a team of Hollywood film
professionals gathered by Sydney Wilkinson blew up the pictures large r
than ever before and saw easily that there was a black blob 'painted' on
the BOH of JFK on the film from about frame 313 to 337. The film also
does not jibe with witnesses right next to the limo when the kill shot
struck. Bobby Hargis who was behind and to the left of the limo was hit
by blood, brains, and fluids, but the Z-film showed none of it flying
back.

>
>
> The Zfilm synchronizes perfectly with all the other films that day
>
> including Bronson's which never left his possession until after he died,
>
> decades later.
>
>
>
> His film shows continuous motion of the limo from the equivalent of
>
> about Z300 to well beyond the fatal head shot. How did they alter that film?
>

KI guess you missed it, but I showed a GIF clip that showed all the limo
passengers swaying together forward when the limo was almost stopped dead.
The film doesn't show that at all, but many witnesses agree that it
happened. I'm not convinced that ALL photos and films match perfectly,
but I can see that they would be close given what had to be done to the
Z-film. Some of those people that lost their cameras and film to agents
never saw them again.

>
>
> It's ridiculous enough to claim that the CIA altered Zapruder, Nix and
>
> Muchmore to make them all match but how did they do the same to
>
> Bronson's film?
>

I wouldn't knpow, but the Z-film was changed. You can see the missing
frames when you watch it. As well the reflection on the right side vreaks
at at least 2 polacxe

[mainframetech]

On Friday, September 27, 2013 4:58:25 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:29:40 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >> John McAdams wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Conspiracists have long considered Dr. Robert McClelland a "back of
>
> >>
>
> >>> the head witness" whose account of Kennedy's head wound supports the
>
> >>
>
> >>> notion of a shot hitting Kennedy from the front.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It doesn't matter what McClelland said because you and I are infinitely
>
> >>
>
> >> better witnesses. He got a glimpse of the BOH but we can see the damage
>
> >>
>
> >> clearly in the Zapruder film and spend as much time as we like, studying it.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://jfkhistory.com/337.jpg
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> This video goes into greater detail.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXglIRrg3Kg
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> and finally, this video address mcadams ridiculous claim that the BOH
>
> >>
>
> >> damage was some kind of illusion which was only visible in that one frame.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTvl9J0Hzwo
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Robert Harris
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Of course, using the Z-film for a resource is not wise as it is under
>
> > suspicion of being modified to fool folks.
>
>
>
> Uh huh. And what exactly was the motive of the perps for drawing in a
>
> massive protrusion in the BOH?
>

Sorry, I didn't see any protrusion, but the Z-film frames have been interpreted as most things at one time or another.

The thread is getting too long and is acting up when trying to add
anything.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Name one in this case. And who pulled it out so it wouldn't be found
to suggest another shooter from other than the TSBD.

Chris