Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Parkland Confusions  (Read 7827 times)

Offline Dillon Rankine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Parkland Confusions
« on: August 29, 2018, 01:51:51 AM »
Advertisement
Was JFK shot in the temple?

Malcolm Kilduff famously pointed to his right temple when describing JFK?s wound. He also clarified to reporters that he had somehow cane upon the knowledge of a right temporal injury. Dr. Malcolm Perry, as per a WOR radio broadcast, apparently agreed, as did Dr. Kemp Clark in the NBC log. JFK was apparently shot ?in the front as he faced the assailant.?

A review of the reports of the Parkland doctors, however, reveals no discussion of this wound. They did, oddly enough, talk about a left temporal wound. In CE-392, Dr. Robert McClelland claims the chase of death was of gunshot wound of the left temple. He later swore on the veracity of this report to Specter. Did he confuse left from right, and confirm what Kilduff and the famous CT entrance wound? Not at all. Firstly, Dr. Clark claimed to have never seen this wound, and Dr. Marion Jenkins made this perplexing remark:

?I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right at the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.?

Here?s the zygomatic process.



Dr. Adolph Giesecke likewise stated to the WC,

?It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the brow? line to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cra?nium was entirely missing.?

Father Oscar Hubert stated he saw a wound near the left eye, and Boswell noted a 0.4cm something-or-other (we?re never told) at the left eye.

Per Jenkins, it looks almost like the Parkland staff only inferred the existence this wound, given its lack of presence at autopsy and its physical impossibility. The top of the zygomatic process at the hairline is, at Z-312ish, completely invisible to any assassin anywhere in the Plaza. It couldn?t have been exit wound due the lack of a dead Mrs. Kennedy. Not even a shooter on the south knoll had a line of sight to that point.

What do we make of this wound? Confusing left and right? The ER doctors haven?t been of much help recently. Despite confirming that his report was accurate to his knowledge, Dr. McClelland never mentions the wound in his testimony, and denied ever seeing such a wound in later interviews (usually when asked a right temporal wound).

The mysterious vanishing wound. First everybody saw it, then they just knew about it, then not even that.

Of course, Dr. Charles Crenshaw of Parkland and Dennis David, the mortician at Bethesda, became CT darlings after saving the day by observing a right temporal wound near the top of the head, at the Kilduff (rather than the bottom as supposed by Jenkins).

Dr. Lattimer has noted the presence of a lesion in this spot on the photos of the head and inside the skull, included in Lawrence Angel?s reconstruction. They proposed it to be an exit portal for the rearward striking bullet, but others beg to differ. Obviously.

Whatever is up with this left temporal wound seems to suggest the Parkland staff might not be as reliable as customarily asserted by CTs.

Anybody able to make heads or tails of this?

JFK Assassination Forum

Parkland Confusions
« on: August 29, 2018, 01:51:51 AM »


Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1497
Re: Parkland Confusions
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2018, 03:03:42 PM »
To make it even more perplexing, McClelland told a medical journal about three to four hours after the assassination that the head wound he saw was on JFK's right side of his head.

The quote: "The cause of death, according to Dr. McClelland, was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the right side of the head."

But as you noted, McClelland's handwritten note, made at 4:45 the day of the assassination, reads (in part): "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac massage failed and ECG activity was gone."

So, in the same day we have McClelland saying the wound was on the left side of the head and then saying it was on right side of the head. And, of course, today and for the past several years he has stated that it was in the rear or back of JFK's head. Left, right and back.

Several of the other doctors - Perry et al. - were interviewed by the journal ("The Texas State Journal of Medicine"). To my knowledge the accounts are the earliest one given by them (yes, excluding the press conference Q-and-A).

Question: If the conspirators were trying to cover up the nature/location of these wounds, why would they allow the doctors to be interviewed in this way? Wouldn't this expose their conspiracy? I understand many of the Oswald defenders don't like questions like this but, sorry, these are legitimate ones. How else can one prove a conspiracy didn't happen - or question the claims - except by pointing to issues like this?

The article is here: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth599863/m1/105/?q=McClelland

« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 08:44:01 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Parkland Confusions
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2018, 08:51:03 PM »
Question: If the conspirators were trying to cover up the nature/location of these wounds, why would they allow the doctors to be interviewed in this way?

Allow the doctors to be interviewed?  Why is it that the conspirators that you guys always make up have superhuman powers?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Parkland Confusions
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2018, 08:51:03 PM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Parkland Confusions
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2018, 09:53:22 PM »
Why is it that the conspirators that you guys always make up have superhuman powers?

Your conspirators could have killed Kennedy anywhere in America and patsy's were apparently a dime a dozen, so if this was planned with an ounce of competency they would have done the crime where they had control you know like in Washington and maybe near Bethesda, so they could at least have control of the body and evidence but instead they did it on the other side of the country and then on top of that went to a lot of trouble to get the body and evidence out of there. Where does that make sense besides on Planet Kook?

But the reality is that Mohammed didn't have to go to the Mountain, the mountain came to Mohammed.

JohnM

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1497
Re: Parkland Confusions
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2018, 10:17:52 PM »
Allow the doctors to be interviewed?  Why is it that the conspirators that you guys always make up have superhuman powers?

Why is it that you're always incapable of understanding a point if it undermines your incessant need to defend Oswald? This almost pathological need of yours to defend him is bizarre.

Of course the conspirators couldn't control all of the doctors and witnesses and other evidence that would have been gathered. JFK was killed in broad daylight, in the middle of a street, with hundreds of people - many with cameras - watching.

After the shooting he would be taken to Parkland (the nearest hospital) where numerous nurses and doctors and spectators would see him. All of this couldn't be controlled.

It is absurd to believe that they could pull off the conspiracy that Garrison and Oliver Stone and Mark Lane and David Lifton and other leading conspiracy people say happened.

You keep complaining that the lone assassin believers make things up about what the conspiracy advocates argue. But you clearly know nothing about what they do argue since they do argue that witnesses were killed, wounds were changed, films were altered and all sorts of evidence against Oswald manipulated.

Get off the "must demand defend Oswald" obsession that you have and try to think like a normal person.  Those are two things I doubt you can do but surprise us.

« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 10:29:50 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Parkland Confusions
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2018, 10:17:52 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Parkland Confusions
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2018, 11:41:35 PM »
Why is it that you're always incapable of understanding a point if it undermines your incessant need to defend Oswald? This almost pathological need of yours to defend him is bizarre.

I'm defending the truth.  If the best argument you have for Oswald's guilt is "hey, look how kooky conspiracy theories are", then you have no argument.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Parkland Confusions
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2018, 11:43:47 PM »
Maybe there wasn't a complicit / incompetent police force who hated Kennedy in Washington and maybe near Bethesda...

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
Re: Parkland Confusions
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2018, 02:06:45 AM »
I'm defending the truth.  If the best argument you have for Oswald's guilt is "hey, look how kooky conspiracy theories are", then you have no argument.

Meanwhile, they fully support the most ridiculous theory of all -- the SBT. 🤣

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Parkland Confusions
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2018, 02:06:45 AM »