Dr. McClelland: Autopsy Photos Show the Wound as He Remembers It

225 views
Skip to first unread message

John McAdams

unread,
Feb 21, 2016, 9:53:49 PM2/21/16
to
From:

BEFORE HISTORY DIES: THE STORIES SURROUNDING THE JFK ASSASSINATION
THAT STRIPPED AMERICA OF HER INNOCENCE, by Jacob Carter

<Quote on>

Q. I have a question about the head wound you saw on President
Kennedy. I want to ask you this question in detail, because some say
that you're mistaken in the way you just described the wound in the
back of his head. Some claim because you didn't turn the President
around, you might be mistaken, because they claim there was never a
wound in the back of President Kennedy's head. Could you describe what
you said in detail or tell us if you ever looked behind his head to
confirm a wound in the back of his head?

A. Well, that's not quite true. I was standing at the back of the
head; I was standing about 18 inches above the back of his head, so I
was looking directly down into a wound in the back of his head that
was probably five or six inches in diameter. It included most of the
right part of the back of his head and a little bit of the back part
of the top of his head. It was a massive wound, and all of the brain
of that part of his head had been blown out. So, I got a very long
look at that directly over a period of five or six minutes while Dr.
Perry and Dr. Baxter were exploring the neck and putting in a
tracheotomy line.

I just stood there and looked down into that wound, so I wasn't
diverted from anything else. I just looked into that wound for around
three or four minutes before he was pronounced dead, so I have a very
vivid impression of what the wound looked like in the back of his
head.

Q. So, you have no doubt in your mind that there was a wound in the
right rear portion of President Kennedy's head?

A. Oh gosh, no more so than the sun comes up every morning. I saw that
directly as I said from a distance of maybe 18 inches above it, and
stared at that wound for five or six minutes before he was pronounced
dead.

Q. Did the other doctors see the same thing?

A. No. They weren't in the position I was in. Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter
were working on the president's neck, doing the tracheotomy. So, they
turned all their attention towards that, not the wound at his head.
And, people who were walking around the trauma room didn't get
anything but indirect glances at the head. I had the best and most
direct view for the longest period.

Q. Now, I want to ask you about the autopsy photos of President
Kennedy. If I am correct you have viewed those photos at the national
archives?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe, from what you originally saw at Parkland, in
regards to the President's wounds, that the autopsy photos have been
tampered with, or do you think that they are pulling President
Kennedy's scalp up and it's hiding the wound in the back of his head?

A. That's what I thought (the latter option) because one of the
pictures shows that the back part of his head was intact, and I had
seen it blown out. But I discounted the significance of that when I
first saw that, because when I looked at that picture it looked like
the autopsy doctor had pulled a flap of scalp over that hole in his
head. I can see his thumb and forefinger in the top of the picture
pulling the scalp forward.

But then I was later told by some of the people who were at the
autopsy, that no, that had not been a flap pulled up over the wound,
but was the way it had been there showing the whole back of head
intact.

Well, I knew that wasn't right. I didn't speculate that I may be
wrong. No, I knew exactly what that wound looked like and the back of
his head was gone on the right side, five or six inches in diameter. I
didn't get a complete idea of the wound until many years later when I
saw the Zapruder film and I put that together with what I saw in
Trauma Room One and it looks to me like he was hit from the front. His
head explodes, literally, and he's thrown violently back and to the
left.

People always ask me if I saw a wound from the front; no, I did not
because I didn't get a chance to examine his body that carefully. All
I got to see was that massive hole in the back of his head, so I'm
making the assumption that there was probably a smaller hole somewhere
near the hairline of the right side of his scalp and it blew out the
right side of his skull.

Q. Is it possible for a bullet to hit someone in the right side of
their head and blow out the same side?

A. It's possible, but not probable.

Q. People argue that if President Kennedy was shot from the grassy
knoll, the left side of his head would have been blown out, and not
the right, because the entry of the bullet would have come from the
right hand side where the knoll is located. "What do you make of that
assessment?

A. No, people who say that really don't have any conception of bullet
wounds.

Q. Do you think you couldn't see the entry wound because of the damage
on his head?

A. It was bloody and there was a lot of hair, and also we didn't get a
chance to examine him closely. All we saw him was five minutes, and
all I could see was the back of his head.

Q. What do you think happened for the rear wound to be covered up in
the autopsy photos?

A. Well, I think it's only that one picture. I discounted that picture
because I thought someone was pulling the scalp over it, but someone
told me they weren't, but it sure looked like they were. I think they
were, so I was not mystified by saying it doesn't look like what I
saw. The wounds that I saw when that flap is not coveting them were
just the kind of same wounds that I had seen in Trauma Room One. That
picture where they are pulling the flap up was the only one out of
several photos, which didn't jive with what I saw.

Q. Do you think they didn't want people to see the wound in the back
of the head?

A. No. I think whenever you make a series of autopsy photos, if they
were trying to do that they wouldn't have shown any of the open wounds
that weren't covered with the flap and it was apparent that he had a
big hole in the back of his skull on the right side. I don't think
they were trying to cover it up or they wouldn't have shown those
other photos.

Q. You have been quoted as saying that you have seen the president's
autopsy photos that show a great defect in the back of his head?

A. Yes. I've seen them, and that's what I saw.

Q. Is it possible that if JFK has been shot from behind and nowhere
else, that he could have a wound like you saw in the back of his head?
A. That can happen, sure. In other words, if he was shot from above
and the bullet came down from above at about a 45 degree angle, it's
possible that that hole could have been made that way. But putting the
whole thing together, after I had seen the Zapruder film as well as
what I had seen directly, it seemed clear to me that he was shot from
the front, from the grassy knoll, because of the way his body was
thrown backward and to the left; that was consistent with my view of
the wound when I first saw it, that this was an exit rather than an
entrance wound.

<end quote>

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John McAdams

unread,
Feb 21, 2016, 11:09:44 PM2/21/16
to
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:53:42 -0600, John McAdams
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:


Let me now comment on my own post, stressing the important parts.

>From:
>
>BEFORE HISTORY DIES: THE STORIES SURROUNDING THE JFK ASSASSINATION
>THAT STRIPPED AMERICA OF HER INNOCENCE, by Jacob Carter
>
><Quote on>
>
>Q. I have a question about the head wound you saw on President
>Kennedy. I want to ask you this question in detail, because some say
>that you're mistaken in the way you just described the wound in the
>back of his head. Some claim because you didn't turn the President
>around, you might be mistaken, because they claim there was never a
>wound in the back of President Kennedy's head. Could you describe what
>you said in detail or tell us if you ever looked behind his head to
>confirm a wound in the back of his head?
>
>A. Well, that's not quite true. I was standing at the back of the
>head; I was standing about 18 inches above the back of his head, so I
>was looking directly down into a wound in the back of his head that
>was probably five or six inches in diameter. It included most of the
^^^^^^^^^^^
>right part of the back of his head and a little bit of the back part
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of the top of his head.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note that this is where the autopsy photos and x-rays show the wound.
Just a "little bit" of the "back part."


>
>I just stood there and looked down into that wound, so I wasn't
>diverted from anything else. I just looked into that wound for around
>three or four minutes before he was pronounced dead, so I have a very
>vivid impression of what the wound looked like in the back of his
>head.
>

Note: no mention of lifting the head, or turning Kennedy over. So
the wound must have been one he would see standing above Kennedy, who
was face up.

>Q. So, you have no doubt in your mind that there was a wound in the
>right rear portion of President Kennedy's head?
>
>A. Oh gosh, no more so than the sun comes up every morning. I saw that
>directly as I said from a distance of maybe 18 inches above it, and
>stared at that wound for five or six minutes before he was pronounced
>dead.
>
>
>Q. Now, I want to ask you about the autopsy photos of President
>Kennedy. If I am correct you have viewed those photos at the national
>archives?
>
>A. Yes.
>
>Q. Do you believe, from what you originally saw at Parkland, in
>regards to the President's wounds, that the autopsy photos have been
>tampered with, or do you think that they are pulling President
>Kennedy's scalp up and it's hiding the wound in the back of his head?
>
>A. That's what I thought (the latter option) because one of the
>pictures shows that the back part of his head was intact, and I had
>seen it blown out. But I discounted the significance of that when I
>first saw that, because when I looked at that picture it looked like
>the autopsy doctor had pulled a flap of scalp over that hole in his
>head. I can see his thumb and forefinger in the top of the picture
>pulling the scalp forward.
>
>But then I was later told by some of the people who were at the
>autopsy, that no, that had not been a flap pulled up over the wound,
>but was the way it had been there showing the whole back of head
>intact.
>

Of course, there was a hand pulling the scalp up concealing the wound
in the Back of the Head photo.

But the question is: where was the wound it concealed?

>
>Q. What do you think happened for the rear wound to be covered up in
>the autopsy photos?
>
>A. Well, I think it's only that one picture. I discounted that picture
>because I thought someone was pulling the scalp over it, but someone
>told me they weren't, but it sure looked like they were. I think they
>were, so I was not mystified by saying it doesn't look like what I
>saw. The wounds that I saw when that flap is not covering them were
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>just the kind of same wounds that I had seen in Trauma Room One. That
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>picture where they are pulling the flap up was the only one out of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>several photos, which didn't jive with what I saw.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Q. Do you think they didn't want people to see the wound in the back
>of the head?
>
>A. No. I think whenever you make a series of autopsy photos, if they
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>were trying to do that they wouldn't have shown any of the open wounds
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that weren't covered with the flap and it was apparent that he had a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>big hole in the back of his skull on the right side. I don't think
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>they were trying to cover it up or they wouldn't have shown those
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>other photos.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So the "other photos" showed "a big hole in the back of his skull on
the right side."

McClelland has no problem with what the other photos show.

But we know what they show: a large wound in the posterior parietal
area.

>
>Q. You have been quoted as saying that you have seen the president's
>autopsy photos that show a great defect in the back of his head?
>
>A. Yes. I've seen them, and that's what I saw.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Again, he has no problem with the extant autopsy photos.

So, for McClelland, the "back of the head" wound he saw was the one
shown in the autopsy photos.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

mainframetech

unread,
Feb 22, 2016, 2:16:04 PM2/22/16
to
I think we're hearing a guy trying to resolve many images he saw over
time. The description of the damage to the head is what a number of
people saw AFTER the body reached Bethesda and entered the autopsy.
Here's a few drawings from witnesses that saw the BOH differently:

Tom Robinson (mortician) saw the ehad before Humes worked on it and
expanded the wound at the BOH to be more on the right side, and more on
the top:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page

Saundra Kay Spencer, who saw a set of photos that cannot be found
anymore, that she developed for the White House, and the set showed the
BOH wound:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679

James Sibert, FBI agent, who observed the body before the autopsy and
observed the autopsy:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719

Nurse Audrey Bell, who said a doctor turned the eahd for her so she could
see the BOH:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg

And of course, the one atributed to McClelland, but niot really done by
him:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/MD264_thumb.jpg

All of the above draeings of the head wound put it at the back of the
head, with NO flap of scalp to pull forward over the wound. Some of the
Over 40+ witnesses that saw the wound as being at the BOH specifically
stated there was not enough flap to do what was seen in the BOH autopsy
photo. However, after Humes and Boswell worked on the body of JFK
(witnessed) the reports of the wound were that it was more around the side
of the head, and more on the top. The witnesses to that clandestine work
wer Edward Reed in sworn testimony and Tom Robinson (mortician) who had
arrived early. Ropbinson spoke of the 'damage' the pathologists did to
the head.

I would have to agre that the head wound could not easily be
accompliahed from the GK or the TSBD, however newer ideas can be genrated
by find ign that there is a head wound that Humes refused to report in his
Autopsy Report (AR), wjhich is more than a simple error. Theeis a head
wound that he left out of the AR altogether. If that had been reported by
hiom it would immediatley say there as a cosnpiracy becaasue the wound had
to be caused from the front as McClelland felt was the case.

Here are clear instructions for those with the drive to check out all
possibilities in the case, to see the wound mentioned. Look at the
'stare-of=-death' autopsy photo and ENLARGE it and then look at the
right forehead/temple area just under the hair hanging down. You should
see a 'bullet hole' or as one person put it, a "dark spot" in the photo:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg

If you were able to find and view the 'bullet hole', you can view ANY
copy of that autopsy photo on the internet and see the wound in question
to prove the one you see here was not made by me.

I think that McClelland is remembering photos or descriptions he heard
later after Humes and the prosectors told their phony story of the wounds.
Here's a comparison from the Parkland views of the wound at the BOH, and
the views after Bethesda:

Before:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
After:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

Chris

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 22, 2016, 6:01:23 PM2/22/16
to
Again: I am still perplexed at how he could be standing above JFK - who
was lying face up and never turned over - then while looking down at JFK's
face and seeing a wound in the back of the head.

If you believe Grossman's statements at told to Brokaw on a 50th
anniversary show, he says he lifted JFK's head and saw the wounds. A large
one on the side/parietal and then a smaller entrance (as he described it)
in the back.

Other than Grossman I am not aware of any of the ER doctors lifting JFK's
head to examine the back.






Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 22, 2016, 8:46:25 PM2/22/16
to
Yes, but make sure that your audience understands what you mean by
"wound." In this example, you mean the EXIT wound. Don't leave out that
qualifier. That exit wound could be caused by several different possible
entrance wounds. I think you know a kook here that could accept that
EXIT wound, but say the ENTRANCE wound was in the forehead.
Some people have described it as both the entrance wound AND the exit
wound. A TANGENTIAL wound.
Now, is there anyone's diagram that you agree with?
Remember, this would show the wound BEFORE the brain was removed.
But you need to tell your audience exactly WHEN that statement was made?
At the time or 40 years later. And the earlier statements might be more
reliable because there would not be enough time to be influenced by
reporters, or the WC or conspiracy authors of threatened into lying.
They might not yet know what to lie about. Maybe they were told that the
shooter was in front of the limo so they thought their stories were
consistent with that. Like Dr. Perry's theory.

> Of course, there was a hand pulling the scalp up concealing the wound
> in the Back of the Head photo.
>
> But the question is: where was the wound it concealed?
>

Below the scalp.
And somewhat into the occipital?

>>
>> Q. You have been quoted as saying that you have seen the president's
>> autopsy photos that show a great defect in the back of his head?
>>
>> A. Yes. I've seen them, and that's what I saw.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Again, he has no problem with the extant autopsy photos.
>

The ones that he was allowed to see. Not the ones that were destroyed.

> So, for McClelland, the "back of the head" wound he saw was the one
> shown in the autopsy photos.
>

But again, you have to remind the kooks that the drawing was not made by
McClelland. They cling to it like the Holy Grail.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 23, 2016, 10:44:27 AM2/23/16
to
On 2/21/2016 9:53 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> From:
>
> BEFORE HISTORY DIES: THE STORIES SURROUNDING THE JFK ASSASSINATION
> THAT STRIPPED AMERICA OF HER INNOCENCE, by Jacob Carter
>

Very misleading. We have to ASSuME that he's questioning Doctor
McClelland. But WHEN? Not on his death bed? This year? Last year?
20 years ago? Maybe there are other interviews more recent than this one.
Yes, and he thought it was an EXIT wound. That does not prove where the
bullet came from. Dr. Perry thought the entrance wound was in the throat
and it blasted out of the back of the head.
What he did not realize it that that autopsy photo was taken AFTER the
top of the skull had been removed and the brain taken out. So of course
the autopsy doctor had to hold the head by the remaining scalp.

> But then I was later told by some of the people who were at the
> autopsy, that no, that had not been a flap pulled up over the wound,
> but was the way it had been there showing the whole back of head
> intact.
>
> Well, I knew that wasn't right. I didn't speculate that I may be
> wrong. No, I knew exactly what that wound looked like and the back of
> his head was gone on the right side, five or six inches in diameter. I

When McClelland saw the head the brain was still in the skull.

> didn't get a complete idea of the wound until many years later when I
> saw the Zapruder film and I put that together with what I saw in
> Trauma Room One and it looks to me like he was hit from the front. His
> head explodes, literally, and he's thrown violently back and to the
> left.
>
> People always ask me if I saw a wound from the front; no, I did not
> because I didn't get a chance to examine his body that carefully. All

Maybe because Dr. Perry was obscuring it while working on the throat.

> I got to see was that massive hole in the back of his head, so I'm
> making the assumption that there was probably a smaller hole somewhere
> near the hairline of the right side of his scalp and it blew out the
> right side of his skull.
>

Because he knows nothing about gunshot wounds.

> Q. Is it possible for a bullet to hit someone in the right side of
> their head and blow out the same side?
>
> A. It's possible, but not probable.
>

Happens every day.

> Q. People argue that if President Kennedy was shot from the grassy
> knoll, the left side of his head would have been blown out, and not
> the right, because the entry of the bullet would have come from the
> right hand side where the knoll is located. "What do you make of that
> assessment?
>
> A. No, people who say that really don't have any conception of bullet
> wounds.
>

Exactly. Or of what types of bullets.

> Q. Do you think you couldn't see the entry wound because of the damage
> on his head?
>
> A. It was bloody and there was a lot of hair, and also we didn't get a
> chance to examine him closely. All we saw him was five minutes, and
> all I could see was the back of his head.
>
> Q. What do you think happened for the rear wound to be covered up in
> the autopsy photos?
>
> A. Well, I think it's only that one picture. I discounted that picture
> because I thought someone was pulling the scalp over it, but someone
> told me they weren't, but it sure looked like they were. I think they
> were, so I was not mystified by saying it doesn't look like what I
> saw. The wounds that I saw when that flap is not coveting them were
> just the kind of same wounds that I had seen in Trauma Room One. That
> picture where they are pulling the flap up was the only one out of
> several photos, which didn't jive with what I saw.
>
> Q. Do you think they didn't want people to see the wound in the back
> of the head?
>
> A. No. I think whenever you make a series of autopsy photos, if they
> were trying to do that they wouldn't have shown any of the open wounds
> that weren't covered with the flap and it was apparent that he had a
> big hole in the back of his skull on the right side. I don't think
> they were trying to cover it up or they wouldn't have shown those
> other photos.
>

But they didn't show ALL the photos.

> Q. You have been quoted as saying that you have seen the president's
> autopsy photos that show a great defect in the back of his head?
>
> A. Yes. I've seen them, and that's what I saw.
>
> Q. Is it possible that if JFK has been shot from behind and nowhere
> else, that he could have a wound like you saw in the back of his head?
> A. That can happen, sure. In other words, if he was shot from above
> and the bullet came down from above at about a 45 degree angle, it's
> possible that that hole could have been made that way. But putting the
> whole thing together, after I had seen the Zapruder film as well as
> what I had seen directly, it seemed clear to me that he was shot from
> the front, from the grassy knoll, because of the way his body was
> thrown backward and to the left; that was consistent with my view of
> the wound when I first saw it, that this was an exit rather than an
> entrance wound.
>

One of the first theories to come out of the autopsy room was that the
bullet hit the back of the head and exited the throat. Nothing he saw
would refute that theory.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 23, 2016, 10:46:54 AM2/23/16
to
Which autopsy photo?
We know that YOU did not make any autopsy photos.

> I think that McClelland is remembering photos or descriptions he heard
> later after Humes and the prosectors told their phony story of the wounds.

Which photos? The ones that the SS destroyed?

BOZ

unread,
Feb 23, 2016, 3:47:51 PM2/23/16
to
McClelland was standing at the back of JFK's head? McClelland was looking
directly down into a wound in the back of Kennedy's head. IMPOSSIBLE
UNLESS HE WERE SUPERMAN. How can you see the back of someone's head when
you are looking directly down? That's an impossible angle to see the back
of the head.

Mark Florio

unread,
Feb 23, 2016, 8:53:26 PM2/23/16
to
On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 10:09:44 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
I'm sure you're aware of it, but for those who aren't, they might want to
take a look what McClelland said about this issue to Bugliosi in
RECLAIMING HISTORY, pages 404-407.

During a second, next day phone interview: "I have to say that the sketch
I first drew for Josiah Thompson's book a few years after the
assassination was misleading. Since last night, I've been thinking that I
placed the large hole in the president's head farther back than it really
was, maybe. It may have been a bit more forward."

Mark

John McAdams

unread,
Feb 23, 2016, 8:56:48 PM2/23/16
to
On 23 Feb 2016 20:53:24 -0500, Mark Florio <norto...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Actually, I didn't remember that.

But what is really interesting about that is that Tink Thompson said
that McClelland did *not* draw the "McClelland drawing."

It was drawn by a medical illustrator based on McClelland's *verbal*
description.

I have an e-mail from Tink saying that.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

mainframetech

unread,
Feb 23, 2016, 9:15:18 PM2/23/16
to
Grossman was not present during the ER experience. At the most he might
have seen the action from the doorway, but he wss not a part of it. He's
the perfect example of a witness that lies to get fame and/or fortune from
it. He went on TV shows and wrote a book and promoted himself frequently.
No other doctors or nurses remember seeing him there for any length of
time. His recitation of wounds is what he picked up from AFTER the
arrival at Bethesda. When the head wound had been expanded to look more
like it was from above and behind.

The head wound was a bit to the right at the BOH based on the
statements of over 40+ witnesses. It was large enough to be obvious from
the side view, but there was also a direct view downward when they were
taking the body out of the limousine, which was mentiond by Nurse Diana
Bowron. But it sounds like his timing was off.

There was a time when Dr. Perry turned the head so that Nurse Audrey
Bell could see the wound.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 24, 2016, 9:46:37 AM2/24/16
to
Do we have to diagram everything for you? McClellan was standing at the
end of the gurney where JFK's head was. Looking down he could see the
top and back of his head.

http://grandsubversion.com/jfkAssassination/nobotimg/jfk_autopsy_photos/atp1pho6.jpg


mainframetech

unread,
Feb 24, 2016, 1:53:03 PM2/24/16
to
The only opportunity to d othat was when they all rushed out to the
limo and saw the POTUS there. A Nurse Diana Bowron said she remembered
seeing the wound when she went out to th limo to help bring JFK into the
ER. But there wasn't much time involved. She would have had almsot as
good a view as Clint Hill who looked down at the wound.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 24, 2016, 1:58:59 PM2/24/16
to
Because you haven't done any research. He was standing at the end of the
gurney where JFK's head was. He could see the top and back of the head.

> If you believe Grossman's statements at told to Brokaw on a 50th
> anniversary show, he says he lifted JFK's head and saw the wounds. A large
> one on the side/parietal and then a smaller entrance (as he described it)
> in the back.
>
> Other than Grossman I am not aware of any of the ER doctors lifting JFK's
> head to examine the back.
>
>

McLelland did not say lifting.
Why does it only have to be the doctors? The nurses saw the back of the
head when they prepared it for shipping. Bowron packed gauze strips into
the head wound. In the TOP of the head, not the BACK.

>
>
>
>


mainframetech

unread,
Feb 24, 2016, 9:38:20 PM2/24/16
to
Perhaps McClelland showed the artist like this:

http://i.imgur.com/9bSlysE.jpg

Chris


mainframetech

unread,
Feb 24, 2016, 9:40:00 PM2/24/16
to
I believe he has been compromised by hearing or seeing what the body
looked like after they got at it in Bethesda. But ther is a list of Over
40+ witnesses to the BOH wound, and it gives context and quotes for your
analysis.

Chris

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 24, 2016, 10:10:00 PM2/24/16
to
As your photo shows, you cannot see the back of the head from that angle.

Where is the EOP in that photo? The cowlick? Neither can be seen in that
photo.







Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 24, 2016, 10:37:20 PM2/24/16
to
Exactly. But will we ever see the FIRST drawing? Not in our lifetimes.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 24, 2016, 10:37:56 PM2/24/16
to
Yes, but that is not the one that Tink used in Six Seconds in Dallas.
Have you ever seen the drawing that McClelland made on the WC exhibit?
Of course not. Because you are afraid to go to my Web page.
But others might be interested.

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


> Mark
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 25, 2016, 1:10:15 PM2/25/16
to
But then you conveniently forget that the same nurse Bowron packed gauze
strips into the same head wound and we can see for ourselves that the
gauze strips are in the TOP and FRONT of the head. NONE in the BACK.

> Chris
>


Robin Unger

unread,
Feb 25, 2016, 1:25:01 PM2/25/16
to

Marcus Hanson

unread,
Feb 25, 2016, 7:13:53 PM2/25/16
to
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 2:44:27 AM UTC+11, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/21/2016 9:53 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> > From:
> >
> > BEFORE HISTORY DIES: THE STORIES SURROUNDING THE JFK ASSASSINATION
> > THAT STRIPPED AMERICA OF HER INNOCENCE, by Jacob Carter
> >
>
> Very misleading. We have to ASSuME that he's questioning Doctor
> McClelland. But WHEN? Not on his death bed? This year? Last year?
> 20 years ago? Maybe there are other interviews more recent than this one.
>

No assumption required : Carter is a young chap.Well,compared to our
motley crew here,anyway : this *is* recent.

Kudos to him for what he's done,but I would advise him and everyone with
an inchoate curiosity about the JFKA : stop it now , whilst you still have
your sanity.

It'd be nice if he joined us,though:presently,I believe we have only the
one Alabaman here.



BOZ

unread,
Feb 25, 2016, 7:14:55 PM2/25/16
to
You call him TINK like you are his best friend. STINK THOMPSON.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 25, 2016, 11:11:21 PM2/25/16
to
Well, if you are blind or obtuse I can't help you. Honest people can see
the back of the head. That was all that was in dispute.

YOU can't show me the bullet hole under all that hair and blood and brains.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 25, 2016, 11:11:57 PM2/25/16
to
So you can't see the screen grab I uploaded? Or you refuse to look at
the evidence?


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 26, 2016, 6:19:35 PM2/26/16
to
Not true. Not even close. McClelland had nothing to do with making that
drawing. It comes from the imagination of a conspiracy believer based on
what HE thinks the head wound looked like. Are you able to see the
pictures here? I posted the screen grab of McClelland actually drawing
what he though the head wound looked like on a WC exhibit. He places it
much higher and on the side of the head. Not your fiction.

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


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 26, 2016, 7:29:13 PM2/26/16
to
Not best friend. Just friend.
A lot of people call him Tink.


Mark Florio

unread,
Feb 27, 2016, 1:20:40 AM2/27/16
to
Steve, I think you're going to have to explain where the back of the head
is located. Mark

BOZ

unread,
Feb 27, 2016, 10:11:55 PM2/27/16
to
I call him STINK. I CALL YOU PINK.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages