The Parkland Doctors, Part Three

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-parkland-doctors-part-three

The Parkland Doctors, Part Three

IN 1981, The Boston Globe interviewed several Parkland doctors and two nurses about JFK's wounds. Their statements were erratic and all over the map. Some supported a photograph from the autopsy and some supported a sketch from the book Six Seconds in Dallas drawn in collaboration with Dr. McClelland's. Importantly, their memories were hazy and many of them did not have good views of JFK's head. The clotted blood and his hair made it difficult to clearly describe the exact position and size of the head wound.

[Lance Payette]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-parkland-doctors-part-three

The Parkland Doctors, Part Three

IN 1981, The Boston Globe interviewed several Parkland doctors and two nurses about JFK's wounds. Their statements were erratic and all over the map. Some supported a photograph from the autopsy and some supported a sketch from the book Six Seconds in Dallas drawn in collaboration with Dr. McClelland's. Importantly, their memories were hazy and many of them did not have good views of JFK's head. The clotted blood and his hair made it difficult to clearly describe the exact position and size of the head wound.

This to me is the essential point about much "conspiracy evidence." The Parkland witnesses, far from looming as large as they do in CT Land, should be almost irrelevant. Picture the total and utter chaos of that day. You are catapulted instantly from Just Another Day at Work to Oh, My God, What the Hell is Happening Here? You suddenly have scant minutes to attempt to deal with The Most Famous Man In the World lying in front of you with his head a bloody pulp, the trauma room and its environs unprecedently chaotic, Jackie waiting outside the door, and then a bizarre, gun-wielding feud over the body. Yet in CT Land, everyone was calmly observing the nature of the wounds, pondering the likely direction of bullets, etc., etc. Those whose recollections can be made to gibe with some conspiracy theory were Telling the Truth, whereas those whose recollections can't are Stooges who were intimidated into toeing the party line.

Larry Hancock once sent me a PM at the Ed Forum agreeing with my basic point that in this, the Unprecedented Event of the Century, everyone involved (according to Conspiracy Logic) should have been proceeding calmly and carefully, documenting precisely what was seen and done, with an eye on what future hucksters with Conspiracy Microscopes might make of it 40, 50 and 60 years later. I made this point in my long-ago post, "A Beginner's Guide to the Conspiracy Game," https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25995-a-beginners-guide-to-the-conspiracy-game/#comment-405798:

5.  In the Conspiracy Game, human nature is inoperative.

a.  No one ever makes an innocent mistake, is ever simply careless or is ever honestly confused or forgetful.  There is no bureaucratic ineptitude.  Every inconsistency in the evidence and testimony has a sinister, conspiracy-furthering explanation.

b.  The fact that the Subject Event is something as sudden and cataclysmic as 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination is irrelevant.  Even in these circumstances, no one ever makes an innocent mistake or becomes honestly confused.  There are no excuses.

c.  No matter the circumstances of the Subject Event, all participants should have made their statements, written their reports and done everything else with one eye on “how it would look” to future generations of historians and conspiracy-seeking researchers.  If they didn’t, too bad for them.

"Erratic and all over the map" is exactly what we should expect. Except in the Conspiracy Game, which is indeed just a silly game.

[Jarrett Smith]

Craniofacial Surgeon Dr. Kenneth Salyer's opinion was a shot from the front, and the autopsy photos did not match what he saw at Parkland. Good enough for me.

[Lance Payette]

Craniofacial Surgeon Dr. Kenneth Salyer's opinion was a shot from the front, and the autopsy photos did not match what he saw at Parkland. Good enough for me.

Oh, dear, the work of a Factoid Buster is seemingly never done. You're going to want to rethink your position. Here is a 75-minute interview that Dr. Salyer gave to the Sixth Floor Museum in 2008. He deals extensively with the issues you raise. It was his opinion that all shots could well have been fired by Oswald (he says this twice) and that the massive head wound could indeed have been a shot from the rear. It seemed to him that the massive flap of skin he observed could have been a shot from the front, but he specifically declined to endorse this view or to endorse a conspiracy. In later years - for example, in 2013 - he spoke without reservation about Oswald as the assassin and even endorsed the SBT. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jfks-back-brace-may-have-cost-him-his-life-doctor-says/

In regard to the autopsy photos, he examines them again (from a book) at the end of the interview. He speculates that when he was with the dying JFK, the massive flap was crumpled tissue and that the autopsy photos show either the flap taped back into place or perhaps the flap gone and covered with tape. He points out that the place where the flap was does not appear to be a natural hairline and even sees what he believes to be tape.
https://www.jfk.org/collections-archive/dr-kenneth-salyer-oral-history/

Oh, he also expresses strong disagreement with Crenshaw's conspiracy-thumping book and describes Oliver Stone's movie as fiction.

Still good enough for you?

[Jarrett Smith]

Oh, dear, the work of a Factoid Buster is seemingly never done. You're going to want to rethink your position. Here is a 75-minute interview that Dr. Salyer gave to the Sixth Floor Museum in 2008. He deals extensively with the issues you raise. It was his opinion that all shots could well have been fired by Oswald (he says this twice) and that the massive head wound could indeed have been a shot from the rear. It seemed to him that the massive flap of skin he observed could have been a shot from the front, but he specifically declined to endorse this view or to endorse a conspiracy. In later years - for example, in 2013 - he spoke without reservation about Oswald as the assassin and even endorsed the SBT. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jfks-back-brace-may-have-cost-him-his-life-doctor-says/

In regard to the autopsy photos, he examines them again (from a book) at the end of the interview. He speculates that when he was with the dying JFK, the massive flap was crumpled tissue and that the autopsy photos show either the flap taped back into place or perhaps the flap gone and covered with tape. He points out that the place where the flap was does not appear to be a natural hairline and even sees what he believes to be tape.
https://www.jfk.org/collections-archive/dr-kenneth-salyer-oral-history/

Oh, he also expresses strong disagreement with Crenshaw's conspiracy-thumping book and describes Oliver Stone's movie as fiction.

Still good enough for you?

You watched a different interview than I did. A shot from the back would not crumple the flap rearward and his opinion was frontal shot. Nice try though.

[Royell Storing]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-parkland-doctors-part-three

The Parkland Doctors, Part Three

IN 1981, The Boston Globe interviewed several Parkland doctors and two nurses about JFK's wounds. Their statements were erratic and all over the map. Some supported a photograph from the autopsy and some supported a sketch from the book Six Seconds in Dallas drawn in collaboration with Dr. McClelland's. Importantly, their memories were hazy and many of them did not have good views of JFK's head. The clotted blood and his hair made it difficult to clearly describe the exact position and size of the head wound.

   I just came across an Uncropped photo of the JFK Limo back seat area. You know that photo showing blood all over the bench seat and down on the floorboard. This Uncropped photo shows the entire backrest, top-to-bottom. The very Tip-Top of the backrest has a section of dried/pooled blood all over it. The only way Blood could have been deposited on the very top of that back rest is via an Exit Wound HOLE in the back of JFK's head. This blood on the Top of the Backrest is also probably part of the Blood/Brain Matter that splattered DPD Motorcycle Officer Hargis riding on the (L) Rear of the JFK Limo. And, this Blood/Brain Matter on the Top of the back rest would also be part of what Jackie climbed onto the Limo Trunk Lid to recover. The Zapruder Film does Not show JFK's head EVER coming into contact with the upper section of the back rest. That blood/brain matter on the Top of the Back Rest came out of the Large Exit Wound in the BACK of JFK's head.

[Lance Payette]

You watched a different interview than I did. A shot from the back would not crumple the flap rearward and his opinion was frontal shot. Nice try though.

But wait: You stated that Dr. Salyer's opinion as a Craniofacial Surgeon was good enough for you. I demonstrated Rather Conclusively that Dr. Salyer's opinion was not as you described it. Now you offer YOUR opinion as a Craniofacial Internet Goofball in contravention of Dr. Salyer's opinion. This is known in the Factoid Buster community as the "True Believer Tap Dance," which is why the work of a Factoid Buster is never done.

Dr. Salyer was not a Craniofacial Surgeon in 1963. As he told the WC, he was a first-year resident assigned to neurosurgery rounds. Even in the 2008 interview, he noted that the flap he observed could have suggested a shot from the front but likewise could have been a shot from the back. He specifically declined to adopt the frontal shot hypothesis and specifically endorsed the Oswald-did-it conclusion. To my knowledge, he never voiced a shot from the front as his medical opinion.

A doctor's "opinion" is a near-sacred medical and legal term. You need to be careful about bandying it around. You also need to be careful about deriving your "knowledge" of the JFKA from things like Jim Di Eugenio's website, a/k/a The Factoid Festival.

Nice try though (well, not really, but we Factoid Busters are charitable sorts). So now we know that what you actually meant was that YOUR opinion as a Craniofacial Internet Goofball is good enough for you.

[Jarrett Smith]

But wait: You stated that Dr. Salyer's opinion as a Craniofacial Surgeon was good enough for you. I demonstrated Rather Conclusively that Dr. Salyer's opinion was not as you described it. Now you offer YOUR opinion as a Craniofacial Internet Goofball in contravention of Dr. Salyer's opinion. This is known in the Factoid Buster community as the "True Believer Tap Dance," which is why the work of a Factoid Buster is never done.

Dr. Salyer was not a Craniofacial Surgeon in 1963. As he told the WC, he was a first-year resident assigned to neurosurgery rounds. Even in the 2008 interview, he noted that the flap he observed could have suggested a shot from the front but likewise could have been a shot from the back. He specifically declined to adopt the frontal shot hypothesis and specifically endorsed the Oswald-did-it conclusion. To my knowledge, he never voiced a shot from the front as his medical opinion.

A doctor's "opinion" is a near-sacred medical and legal term. You need to be careful about bandying it around. You also need to be careful about deriving your "knowledge" of the JFKA from things like Jim Di Eugenio's website, a/k/a The Factoid Festival.

Nice try though (well, not really, but we Factoid Busters are charitable sorts). So now we know that what you actually meant was that YOUR opinion as a Craniofacial Internet Goofball is good enough for you.

Wow, you wasted all that time writing drivel.