JFK What the doctors saw.....Parkland hospital

[Allan Fritzke]

Did any of you watch the documentary movie "JFK what the doctors saw"?  It is really a game changer for anyone who believes in the SBT  (magic bullet) and that LHO acted alone.   The doctors at the Parkland Hospital who first examined Kennedy discussed what they saw recently.  It was noted the autopsy was not done by a forensic pathologist but conducted by 2 military physicians - no specialists!   Who do they answer to?  To the contrary, the Parkland doctors were surgeon specialists who were physical witnesses and in fact expert witnesses who treated lots of gunshot wounds and accidents.   Their information should be considered more than reliable.

One of the major issues brought out in the documentary was the time difference between the common military casket and the empty fancy coffin getting to the autopsy location.   With that, it was also noted that the brain fell out of the skull on the Bethesda autopsy table - severed from the brain stem.  The brain appeared to have been removed beforehand perhaps to tamper with the evidence.   Aside note, brain has gone missing and never found since.   The 2 military doctors covered this up by asking whether or not surgery was done at Parkland Hospital!  Did they phone or consult Parklands?  The documentary assumed that these doctors had enough time before 8:00 PM to make the LNer narrative stick.  They never even examined the throat wound and assumed it was a tracheotomy only.   They were very thorough it would appear!!!   Was this a common street thug or the POTUS?

In summary, the doctors at Parkland agreed on several things:

1) They quickly agreed and determined when JFK arrived that the bullet in the neck just above the shirt, came from the front. 
2) The bullet that killed JFK knocked a lot of his brain matter onto the trunk coming from the RHS of his brain.  Jacqueline climbed out, retrieved a large part and then gave it to a doctor at the hospital after climbing back in.  She was not fleeing the car.  They said she was very calm and composed and exchanged her rings with JFK after he died and accepted his death as a consequence.
3) The doctors noted a large hole blown out at the back of JFK's skull which was absent at the autopsy scene.  They looked at the classic autopsy photo of someone holding the hair back in place over the hole with forceps.  That wasn't the way they saw it.
4) The doctors at Parkland Hospital have no reason to want to have a conspiracy theory, peg the murder on any one person, try to cover it up, hide or conceal what they saw from the public.  They did their best to save their Democrat President's life as they never expected to see this happen on their watch.  Did they have skin in the game?  No!

These doctors in my opinion were very honest.  My thought is the first bullet struck JFK in the neck and lodged in the upholstery behind him and to his right.  There had to be at least 3 shots when you consider how much damage John Connally took.  Chest, hand, hip. Certainly not one magic bullet that pierced through many different spots, hardly marked and found with a small dent inside the car.  Everything in the autopsy was a sham.   

I still believe the neck shot came from one of the two mystery men across from the sign, driver's side.  Who are they?  For some reason, One person's hands goes behind his back as the car passes which is weird. Maybe swatting a mosquito?   Scenario would likely be an umbrella man attracting everyone's attention from the other direction - a magician's trick while the real play of hand is on the other side!  Kennedy does look back towards Jacqueline for help or was it an instinctive reaction to where the bullet approached from?

If doctors at Parkland are correct, the Zapruder film of JFK is heavily edited.   There is a reason why his hair is always shown on the back of his head in the Zapruder frames.  Doctors claimed there was a wide open hole at the Parkland hospital on the table.  They are very sure of that.   If there was a hole there,  it would be glaringly evidence against LHO, LNer theory and should be visible on the Zapruder frames.  Are the doctors at Parkland wrong or was there a need to close this case quickly and then kill LHO so there were no loose ends?    I don't know how many people were involved but the cover-up and shooting involved many parties.   Defector LHO story is just too good!  Returns from Russia and at the right place and at the right time!  John Wicks and a spy novel played out in reality!   

I always thought JFK sensed something amiss and raised his hand in a defensive stance. Just after that hand raise, Jacqueline climbs to the trunk and retrieves part of his brain.  The SS on passenger side ducks to the inside during these frames - maybe instinct and lets hope coincidence.  Light aberration from shattered glass!  Certainly aberration on windshield from the sun at the very least.   And just after that, a postal man rolling in the grass! Yep its a CT's dream!

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

There are so many pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. Some are faux pieces & form a faux pix. Some are true pieces & form the true pix.
It took me only about 12 months to assemble the true pix. I must have a good BS meter.
I used a number of tricks. Its best to work backwards.
U form a hypothesis based on your favorite ( hopefully true) pieces, & then u look for more (true) pieces that fit.
In the end this method will be quickest.
Good luck.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Ok lets look at the piece that says that there is/was a big hole in the back of the head.
At Parklands this hole would have been laying flat against the gurney sheet. The hole would have been invizible.
At Bethesda this hole would have had the head support rest pushing up into the hole & lifting the brain.
So, there was no hole in the back of the head.
So, this piece is a faux piece & can be thrown away.
So, now we are getting somewhere.
 

[John Mytton]

Did any of you watch the documentary movie "JFK what the doctors saw"?  It is really a game changer for anyone who believes in the SBT  (magic bullet) and that LHO acted alone.   The doctors at the Parkland Hospital who first examined Kennedy discussed what they saw recently.  It was noted the autopsy was not done by a forensic pathologist but conducted by 2 military physicians - no specialists!   Who do they answer to?  To the contrary, the Parkland doctors were surgeon specialists who were physical witnesses and in fact expert witnesses who treated lots of gunshot wounds and accidents.   Their information should be considered more than reliable.

One of the major issues brought out in the documentary was the time difference between the common military casket and the empty fancy coffin getting to the autopsy location.   With that, it was also noted that the brain fell out of the skull on the Bethesda autopsy table - severed from the brain stem.  The brain appeared to have been removed beforehand perhaps to tamper with the evidence.   Aside note, brain has gone missing and never found since.   The 2 military doctors covered this up by asking whether or not surgery was done at Parkland Hospital!  Did they phone or consult Parklands?  The documentary assumed that these doctors had enough time before 8:00 PM to make the LNer narrative stick.  They never even examined the throat wound and assumed it was a tracheotomy only.   They were very thorough it would appear!!!   Was this a common street thug or the POTUS?

In summary, the doctors at Parkland agreed on several things:

1) They quickly agreed and determined when JFK arrived that the bullet in the neck just above the shirt, came from the front. 
2) The bullet that killed JFK knocked a lot of his brain matter onto the trunk coming from the RHS of his brain.  Jacqueline climbed out, retrieved a large part and then gave it to a doctor at the hospital after climbing back in.  She was not fleeing the car.  They said she was very calm and composed and exchanged her rings with JFK after he died and accepted his death as a consequence.
3) The doctors noted a large hole blown out at the back of JFK's skull which was absent at the autopsy scene.  They looked at the classic autopsy photo of someone holding the hair back in place over the hole with forceps.  That wasn't the way they saw it.
4) The doctors at Parkland Hospital have no reason to want to have a conspiracy theory, peg the murder on any one person, try to cover it up, hide or conceal what they saw from the public.  They did their best to save their Democrat President's life as they never expected to see this happen on their watch.  Did they have skin in the game?  No!

These doctors in my opinion were very honest.  My thought is the first bullet struck JFK in the neck and lodged in the upholstery behind him and to his right.  There had to be at least 3 shots when you consider how much damage John Connally took.  Chest, hand, hip. Certainly not one magic bullet that pierced through many different spots, hardly marked and found with a small dent inside the car.  Everything in the autopsy was a sham.   

I still believe the neck shot came from one of the two mystery men across from the sign, driver's side.  Who are they?  For some reason, One person's hands goes behind his back as the car passes which is weird. Maybe swatting a mosquito?   Scenario would likely be an umbrella man attracting everyone's attention from the other direction - a magician's trick while the real play of hand is on the other side!  Kennedy does look back towards Jacqueline for help or was it an instinctive reaction to where the bullet approached from?

If doctors at Parkland are correct, the Zapruder film of JFK is heavily edited.   There is a reason why his hair is always shown on the back of his head in the Zapruder frames.  Doctors claimed there was a wide open hole at the Parkland hospital on the table.  They are very sure of that.   If there was a hole there,  it would be glaringly evidence against LHO, LNer theory and should be visible on the Zapruder frames.  Are the doctors at Parkland wrong or was there a need to close this case quickly and then kill LHO so there were no loose ends?    I don't know how many people were involved but the cover-up and shooting involved many parties.   Defector LHO story is just too good!  Returns from Russia and at the right place and at the right time!  John Wicks and a spy novel played out in reality!   

I always thought JFK sensed something amiss and raised his hand in a defensive stance. Just after that hand raise, Jacqueline climbs to the trunk and retrieves part of his brain.  The SS on passenger side ducks to the inside during these frames - maybe instinct and lets hope coincidence.  Light aberration from shattered glass!  Certainly aberration on windshield from the sun at the very least.   And just after that, a postal man rolling in the grass! Yep its a CT's dream!

These doctors in my opinion were very honest.

Do you think McClelland was "honest"?
Was the wound behind the ear, above the ear, where?
If McClelland's drawing is what he saw then how the heck does he look down into Kennedy's wound while standing above him but if what he saw was the actual authenticated wound then his testimony under oath makes much more sense.



It only happened one way.



Do any of these eyewitnesses see the same wound?

If doctors at Parkland are correct, the Zapruder film of JFK is heavily edited.

And if the thoroughly authenticated Zapruder Film, Nix Film, Muchmore Film, Autopsy photos and X-rays are correct, then what does that say about some Parkland Doctors?

JohnM

[Allan Fritzke]

Well we can make all sorts of inferences.  Not sure John where your Mcclelland quote comes from or if it was done years later.  Here are some excerpts which Mcclelland made under oath in WC book 6.  I do think he was as honest as could be when his career is on the line and could be ended by the powers that be.  Nobody wants to lose their jobs -right or wrong so people tend to be mindful of the rules.  He describes well the massive amount of brain tissue missing and the size of the throat wound as described by Mr. Perry.  It appeared to be less than 1/4 inch in diameter and about the same size as the one the autopsy found in the back.   My conjecture .22 or .25 calibre and that is the magic bullet!

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy’s condition at that time?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. Well, on initially coming into the room and inspecting him from a distance of only 2 or 3 feet as I put on a pair of surgical gloves, it was obvious that he had sustained a probably mortal head injury, and that his face was extremely swollen and suffused with blood appeared cyanotic---
Mr. SPECTER “Cyanotic’‘-may I interrupt-just what do you mean by that in lay terms?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. This mean bluish discoloration, bluish-black discoloration of the tissue. The eyes were somewhat protuberant, which is usually seen after massive head injuries denoting increased intracranial pressure, and it seemed that he perhaps was not making, at the time at least, spontaneous respiratory movements, but was receiving artificial respiration from a machine, an anesthesia machine.
Mr. SPECTER. Who was operating that machine?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. The machine-there was a changeover, just as I came in, one of the doctors in the room, I don’t recall which one, had been operating what we call an intermittent positive pressure breathing machine.
Mr. SPECTER. Had that machine been utilized prior to your arrival?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. It was in use as I arrived, yes, and about the same time I arrived -- this would be one other doctor who came in the room that I forgot about --Dr. Jenkins, M. T. Jenkins, professor of anesthesiology, came into the room with a larger anesthesia machine, which is a better type machine with which to maintain control of respiration, and this was then attached to the tube in the President’s tracheotomy;  anyway, respiratory movements were being made for him with these two machines, which were in the process of being changed when I came in. Then, as I took my post to help with the tracheotomy, I was standing at the end of the stretcher on which the President was lying, immediately at his head, for purposes of holding a tracheotom, or a retractory in the neck line.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe, if anything, as to the status of the neck wound when you first arrived?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. The neck wound, when I first arrived, was at this time converted into a tracheotomy incision. The skin incision had been made by Dr. Perry, and he told me-although I did not see that-that he had made the incision through a very small, perhaps less than one quarter inch in diameter wound in the neck.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you recall whether he described it any more precisely than that?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. He did not at that time.
Mr. SPECTER. Has he ever described it any more precisely for you?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. He has since that time.
Mr. SPECTER. And what description has he given of it since that time?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. As well as I can recall, the description that he gave was
essentially as I have just described, that it was a very small injury, with clear cut, although somewhat irregular margins of less than a quarter inch in diameter, with minimal tissue damage surrounding it on the skin.
Mr. SPECTER. Sow, was there anything left for you to observe of that bullet wound, or had the incision obliterated it?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. The incision had obliterated it, essentially, the skin portion, that is.
Mr. SPECTER. Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with clear
cut, although somewhat irregular margins of less than a quarter inch in diameter, with minimal tissue damage surrounding it on the skin.
Mr. SPECTER. So, was there anything left for you to observe of that bullet wound, or had the incision obliterated it?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. The incision had obliterated it, essentially, the skin portion, that is.
Mr. SPECTER. Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with respect to the head wound?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right
posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right
posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.

During their assessment initially they had adopted a SBT.  The bullet came in at the neck and went out at the back of the head. After hearing autopsy information, they changed their minds with the additional information.  He is purely honest about his conjecture.

Mr. SPECTER. What were your initial impressions?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. The initial impression that we had was that perhaps the wound in the neck, the anterior part of the neck. was an entrance wound and that it had perhaps taken a trajectory off the anterior vertebral body and
again into the skull itself, exiting out the back, to produce the massive injury in the head. However, this required some straining of the imagination to imagine that this would happen, and it was much easier to explain the apparent
trajectory by means of two bullets, which we later found out apparently had been fired, than by just one then, on which basis we were originally taking to explain it.
Mr. SPECTER. Through the use of the pronoun “we” in your last answer, to whom do you mean by “we”?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. Essentially all of the doctors that have previously been mentioned here...

Further in his testimony, he accidentally mentioned his thoughts about the tracheotomy actually being an entrance hole.  So he had to rephrase to please his interrogator!  Again seems to me he meant no harm.  He was trying to tell the truth and yet someone seemingly was using pointed interrogation techniques to extract what was required to keep the solution pointing to only one gunman.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, had you actually observed the wound prior to the time the tracheotomy was performed on that neck wound?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. No ; my knowledge of the entrance wound, as I stated, in my former deposition, was merely from what Dr. Perry told me when I entered the room and began putting on a pair of surgical gloves to assist in the tracheotomy. Dr. Perry looked up briefly and said that they had made an incision and there in the process of making an incision in the neck, which extended through the middle of the wound in question in the front of the neck.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, you have just characterized it in that last answer as an entrance wound.
Dr. MCCLELLASD. Well. perhaps I shouldn’t say the wound anyway, not the entrance wound -- that might be a slip of the tongue.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have a firm opinion at this time as to whether it is an entrance wound or exit wound or whatever?
Dr. MCCLELLAND.  Of course, my opinion now would be colored by everything that I’ve heard about it and seen since, but I’ll say this, if I mere simply looking at the wound again and had seen the wound in its unchanged state, and which I did not, and of course, as I say, it had already been opened up by the tracheotomy incision when I saw the wound - but if I saw the wound in its state in which Dr. Perry described it to me, I would probably initially think this were an entrance wound knowing nothing about the circumstances as I did at the time, but I really couldn’t say -- that’s the whole point. This would merely be a calculated guess, and that’s all, not knowing anything more than just seeing the wound itself.
Mr. SPECTER. But did you, in fact, see the wound prior to the time the incision was made?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. No.
Mr. SPECTER. So that any preliminary thought you had even, would be based upon what you had been told by Dr. Perry?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. That’s right.

[John Mytton]

Not sure John where your Mcclelland quote comes from or if it was done years later. 

MR. GUNN: Dr. McClelland, where were you standing, first of all?
DR. McCLELLAND: I was standing at the head of -- Dr. Perry, as he said, I arrived and I walked to the left side of the cart and walked around to the head and was standing at the right of Dr. Jenkins. And I got an Army/Navy, which is a particular name you apply to a commonly used retractor, and leaned over President's head to help retract while Dr. Baxter and Dr. Perry were finishing up the tracheostomy.
So I was standing where I was looking down intently in the wound and really had nothing to do but that because I -- it didn't take much attention to pull the retractor, And so I could clearly see what the wound looked like over a good period of time.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/arrbpark.htm

JohnM

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I'll defer to the experts - even the internet variety - but I don't see how McClelland could see any cerebellum from the head wound he sketched out below. The wound is far too high to damage/expose cerebellum. I think this is also mostly true to various degrees with the other doctors on this issue, i.e., wound they described was too high to expose cerebellum.

McClelland also testified - as did Dr. Perry - that he saw the neck/throat wound AFTER an incision had been performed on it. He couldn't have seen the small entry wound he also sketched out below. It had been altered by Perry's tracheotomy surgery. McClelland came across as a honest man but I think his accounts about the wounds were/are basically worthless (and I won't even start to mention what he said earlier about the locations of the head wound).

[Allan Fritzke]

Thanks for clarification.  So the original quote in your first post was (paraphrased from 1964) in the 1998 inquiry and testimony and was  "inferenced" as a BS argument from McClelland's statements.  Nothing of that quote in the image posted  even remotely matches his 1964 testimony.   Clearly misleading terms and meant as misinformation and rabbit hole material to diffuse and deflect his original testimony and add confusion with the statement he made 34 years later.




What I quoted from was the original Warren Commission report where McClelland is clearly assisting with the tracheostomy and using a retractor instrument with that neck wound.  That was released within 11 months and should be considered fresh firsthand expert testimony from a surgeon.   In 1998 statement, he added "with the knowledge gained after viewing of the Zapruder film" , it DID NOT change his opinion of the size of the wound being an exit and not an entrance hole and that it is still consistent as an exit wound.   Head, body goes back, arms go up in a defensive posture and explodes with the frontal assault.  Brain matter goes back onto trunk. Skull blows out, not in.   There is no reason to dispute his original observations made even before he saw the Zapruder film.  He makes a very good observation initially of the outward thrust of the skull bone in his description without ever seeing the Zapruder film.  Mere observation.  I assume he was not allowed to see the film in 1964.  That was government confidential secret material. 

Dr. MCCLELLAND.  As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.

Why would someone want to discredit McClelland's observations, cherry pick and or enter in false statements like done with the image posted?   Is that not a normal reaction when you want to obfuscate evidence?  Let the facts speak for themselves I say.

Someone is clearly trying to apply  "retraction" to assume that he was somehow involved with the large gaping head wound at the right exterior of the skull.  His discussion was of the neck wound.

During 1998 inquiry, there was also launched an argument that there was a spinal cord/brainstem injury which caused the presidents head to fly back and arch and even included the neck wound several seconds earlier as the reason.  It was involuntary and similar to what happens when you "pith a frog or any animal" at the base of the head. They avoid discussing of the arms going up in a defensive stance - all involuntary (opisthotonos).  Again, information introduced in order to justify what was seen in the Zapruder film and only has one conclusion - a single gunman acting alone and no head thrust back!   Keep it simple stupid - don't question the argument of multiple gunmen.  "We have already built the case to make the evidence fit a lone nut and so it goes. There was only one, acted alone, a nutcase and  we have compiled all evidence to say that and only that.  Shut up and accept that as fact.  We have

6  ways from Sunday of getting back at you.

if you question our authority."

Why was this necessary?  Anything besides that argument would point fingers at the non-elected institutions being somehow responsible in a framing operation.  In essence this is protecting themselves from exposition.  Not possible!  Questioning is an existential threat to democracy and how the people perceive government operations occur in a Republic.  In a real democracy, the people make decisions to go to war, who they vote for and how their tax dollars get spent.    Thankfully this is how it works.  (I hope you sense my intended sarcasm!)