JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Gerald Posner said it in his book? So there no evidence besides what he wrote in his book.

It was an interview with Perry for the book, interviewed in April 1992.

Dr Peters: "I dont think Bob McClellend was in the best place to see the head wound"

Dr Jenkins: "I hate to say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right". .. I guess the last point is that Bob and Groden (co author of High Treason) are such good friends, I believe it has changed his attitude.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Rubbish McClelland has always stated the wound was at the back of the head.

Nope you're wrong again. Genuinely astonishing how wrong you can be.

Robert McClelland’s report was signed at 4:45pm on the day of the assassination. “The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea…The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple.“

And, I've just posted proof (like proper fact) that 5 years ago he said the wound was at the side of the head. Did you not read it?

How has he "always" stated that the wound was at the back of the head when 5 years ago he said it was at the side of the head? Are you just ignoring that fact because it doesn't fit your confirmation bias?

So over the years he has reported the left temple, the back of the head and the right side of the head. Yet hes your go to guy.

And explain this.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

JFK the head is going to be on a pillow or placed on some rest sit on a table for an operation to take place. You telling me you would not see a hole at the rear at the back of the head. Only the very back of the head near the neckline would be hard to see.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe the condition of the back of the President's head?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Well, partially; not, of course, as I say, we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged

18 December 63. St. Louis Post-Dispatch
"I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind... as far as I am concerned, there is no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front"

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

It was an interview with Perry for the book, interviewed in April 1992.

Dr Peters: "I dont think Bob McClellend was in the best place to see the head wound"

Dr Jenkins: "I hate to say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right". .. I guess the last point is that Bob and Groden (co author of High Treason) are such good friends, I believe it has changed his attitude.



Nope you're wrong again. Genuinely astonishing how wrong you can be.

Robert McClelland’s report was signed at 4:45pm. “When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea…The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple.“

And, I've just posted proof (like proper fact) that 5 years ago he said the wound was at the side of the head. Did you not read it?

How has he "always" stated that the wound was at the back of the head when 5 years ago he said it was at the side of the head? Are you just ignoring that fact because it doesn't fit your confirmation bias?

And explain this.



Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe the condition of the back of the President's head?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Well, partially; not, of course, as I say, we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged

18 December 63. St. Louis Post-Dispatch
"I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind... as far as I am concerned, there is no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front"

You quoting does not make sense or not accurate, because in the pictures I provided Dr Peters is also saying the head wound was at the back of the head. You see his hand is placed there. So if he saw the wound how can Dr McClellend not have, doesn't make sense does it or does it for you? Whos book are you quoting from still Gerald Posner?

You posting quotes with no sourcing to them. Dr McCelland believes the bullet hit the temple area and exited out the near the occipital, parietal region of the brain. There no problem there.

The Parietal lobe of the brain is located at the side of the head You assuming he agreeing with you where the head wound was located.

He does not have to see the full back of the head to see a hole at the rear side. Are you really going to continue with this nonsense?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You quoting does not make sense or not accurate, because in the pictures I provided Dr Peters is also saying the head wound was at the back of the head. You see his hand is placed there. So if he saw the wound how can Dr McClellend not have, doesn't make sense does it or does it for you?

It doesn't make sense. Thats why its not reliable evidence. I don't have faith in it either way, pro or anti conspiracy. Too many conflicting opinions, which is my point. But you just take a quote or a picture that suits your agenda and stick with it, no matter how unreliable it is. Thats confirmation bias.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You posting quotes with no sourcing to them. Dr McCelland believes the bullet hit the temple area and exited out the near the occipital, parietal region of the brain. There no problem there.

The Parietal lobe of the brain is located at the side of the head You assuming he agreeing with you where the head wound was located.

He does have to see the full back of the head to see a hole at the rear side. Are you really going to continue with this nonsense?

So are you going to ignore what he said in his original report and what he said in 2013?

Are you going to ignore what you said here? Is it a lie or are you just wrong?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Rubbish McClelland has always stated the wound was at the back of the head.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

So are you going to ignore what he said in his original report and what he said in 2013?

Are you going to ignore what you said here? Is it a lie or are you just wrong?

He said the right side of his head was blown out. He says that all the time on interviews. The right side was blown out. When you get down to specifics of exact location then he like many others place their hand at the back right side rear of the head. It was a hole behind the right ear at the parietal and occipital lobe. In the Zapruder film the blow out in front of the right ear, near the frontal lobe.

He always stated the bullet hit the Temple and then blew out the brain at the rear of the head.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He always stated the bullet hit the Temple and then blew out the brain at the rear of the head.

lol!

Yet again you completely ignore fact. Fact I've just posted.

Did you just ignore this? Lets try again will we?

This is from an interview he did for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch 3 weeks after the assassination.

"I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind. As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front"

Explain that please.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

lol!

Yet again you completely ignore fact. Fact I've just posted.

Did you just ignore this? Lets try again will we?

This is from an interview he did for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch 3 weeks after the assassination.

"I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind. As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front"

Explain that please.

You have to prove to me to that is a genuine quote, where did you pull it from online?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have to prove to me to that is a genuine quote, where did you pull it from online?

lol.
Do you not read any of your posts?
You constantly steal and plagerise content all the time. You never provide any links or references to them.
The only hint is when your spelling and grammar leaps up a few school years.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

lol.
Do you not read any of your posts?
You constantly steal and plagerise content all the time. You never provide any links or references to them.
The only hint is when your spelling and grammar leaps up a few school years.

Who invited you to this conversation

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Who invited you to this conversation

Just pointing out your glaring flaming hypocrisy that shows you to either be incompetent or dishonest.

You constantly steal and plagerise content all the time. You never provide any links or references to them.
You demanding that some one "prove" a quote is hilarious.
Just wanted to high light that.

Please continue. You are doing a great job.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Just pointing out your glaring flaming hypocrisy that shows you to either be incompetent or dishonest.

You constantly steal and plagerise content all the time. You never provide any links or references to them.
You demanding that some one "prove" a quote is hilarious.
Just wanted to high light that.

Please continue. You are doing a great job.

Rubbish, I provide links when necessary when I post a long post or quote substantially from the link. You have never heard of fair use.

You claim I post no links what this then?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057932231&page=77

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Rubbish, I provide links when necessary when I post a long post or quote substantially from the link. You have never heard of fair use.

Another term you do not understand.
Copy pasting huge blocks of text is not fair use.
Posting quotes without saying where they come from is not "providing links".

Again, you are a joke. I'm just pointing out another of your hypocrisies as well as your total lack of self awareness.

Seriously. You are like 15 right? You really should learn about how to use attributions before you need to go to college...

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have to prove to me to that is a genuine quote, where did you pull it from online?

lol. Its from a very famous article that is year zero for conspiracy theories. Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 18th December 1963.

So explain that then please?

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

lol. Its from a very famous article that is year zero for conspiracy theories. Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 18th December 1963.

So explain that then please?

What's the bets?
Claim it's a fake quote planted by the conspirators?
Abandon his witness?
Ignore the point and throw up a smoke screen?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Another term you do not understand.
Copy pasting huge blocks of text is not fair use.
Posting quotes without saying where they come from is not "providing links".

Again, you are a joke. I'm just pointing out another of your hypocrisies as well as your total lack of self awareness.

Seriously. You are like 15 right? You really should learn about how to use attributions before you need to go to college...

I have told you before stop sayings I never said. You have a comprehension problem and its annoying.

When I post a wall of text from the link, I post the link with it.

A few lines from someone testimony at the Warren Commission does need to be linked to every damn time. You not going to look this up anyhow, you only here to troll and annoy. Nal does the same and quotes stuff from the Warren Commission with no links, but I know the information his posting is not false.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have told you before stop sayings I never said. You have a comprehension problem and its annoying.

When I post a wall of text from the link, I post the link with it.

No you don't.
You might live in your own reality where you do. But that's not what people are seeing here.

You are a hypocrite for demanding that Nal prove a quote to you.
You are trying to deflect because you've been shown up again.
It's hilarious.

So more like 12-13 then?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

lol. Its from a very famous article that is year zero for conspiracy theories. Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 18th December 1963.

So explain that then please?

I can't find this quote online anywhere. I can't comment on till I see what Richard Dudman wrote down.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No you don't.
You might live in your own reality where you do. But that's not what people are seeing here.

You are a hypocrite for demanding that Nal prove a quote to you.
You are trying to deflect because you've been shown up again.
It's hilarious.

So more like 12-13 then?

Your madness is fascinating Keep it up. Shown me up on what exactly?

Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 18th December 1963.


If this quote is genuine why am not finding this quote uploaded online? Maybe Nal can post the source he got it from online

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your madness is fascinating Keep it up. Shown me up on what exactly?

You keep quoting people who fundamentally disagree with your mad conspiracy.
You then ignore the quotes from them you don't like and do like the above to avoid admitting your very obvious error.

Again, this is obvious to everyone reading this thread. It is not obvious to you either because you are desperate enough to think no one has coped to your silliness or because you simply are incapable to understanding your own errors and hypocrisy.
I think it's a mix.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You keep quoting people who fundamentally disagree with your mad conspiracy.
You then ignore the quotes from them you don't like and do like the above to avoid admitting your very obvious error.

Again, this is obvious to everyone reading this thread. It is not obvious to you either because you are desperate enough to think no one has coped to your silliness or because you simply are incapable to understanding your own errors and hypocrisy.
I think it's a mix.

You keep quoting people who fundamentally disagree with your mad conspiracy.

False. Name on person, and we discuss it.

You then ignore the quotes from them you don't like and do like the above to avoid admitting your very obvious error.


The quotes don't make sense and clearly are in error when you have pictures of the doctors placing their hand at the back of the head. If you placing your hand at the back of the head then Oswald was not the only shooter. Its commonsense.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I can't find this quote online anywhere. I can't comment on till I see what Richard Dudman wrote down.

lol. Yeah you won't believe it until you see a video of him writing it down with McClellend audible on the video or something. But you take other quotes as gospel that suit your agenda.

So McClellend has said JFK was hit in the left temple, right temple and initially didn't mention a huge hole in the back of his head.

We don't need you to comment on it. We can all see you were wrong.

Heres a few more factoids though.

Charles Roberts of Newsweek interviewed Senator Ralph Yarborough, who’d arrived at Parkland Hospital just after President Kennedy, and had witnessed his removal from the limousine. He asked the Senator where Kennedy had been shot, and that a horrified Yarborough responded "I can't tell you," as he unconsciously held "his hand to the right side of his head, where he had seen blood streaming from the President."

Dr. George Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician) had seen Kennedy in the Dallas emergency room and was later to tell the HSCA that Kennedy’s wounds didn’t change between Dallas and Bethesda.

Dr. Malcolm Perry: "The nature of the wound defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side. I cannot tell you that." (When asked again if there was one or two wounds) "I don't know.

Dr. McClelland: "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple."

Secret Service agent Glen Bennett in the car behind. "hit the right rear high of the President’s head."

And so on. None of this proves or disproves anything.

King Mob wrote: »

You keep quoting people who fundamentally disagree with your mad conspiracy.

I don't see a conspiracy or a theory. He just believes anything thats conspiracy related. An absolute dream customer for conspiracy writers. Just accepts it as gospel without asking any questions.

King Mob wrote: »

You then ignore the quotes from them you don't like and do like the above to avoid admitting your very obvious error.

Not even quotes, actual facts. As below.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Rubbish McClelland has always stated the wound was at the back of the head.

I then post McClellends own report saying it was a shot to the left temple and a recent speech where McClellend himself says "the right side of his brain had been blown out" and its totally ignored! Hilarious stuff.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

lol. Yeah you won't believe it until you see a video of him writing it down with McClellend audible on the video or something. But you take other quotes as gospel that suit your agenda.

So McClellend has said JFK was hit in the left temple, right temple and initially didn't mention a huge hole in the back of his head.

We don't need you to comment on it. We can all see you were wrong.

Heres a few more factoids though.

Charles Roberts of Newsweek interviewed Senator Ralph Yarborough, who’d arrived at Parkland Hospital just after President Kennedy, and had witnessed his removal from the limousine. He asked the Senator where Kennedy had been shot, and that a horrified Yarborough responded "I can't tell you," as he unconsciously held "his hand to the right side of his head, where he had seen blood streaming from the President."

Dr. George Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician) had seen Kennedy in the Dallas emergency room and was later to tell the HSCA that Kennedy’s wounds didn’t change between Dallas and Bethesda.

Dr. Malcolm Perry: "The nature of the wound defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side. I cannot tell you that." (When asked again if there was one or two wounds) "I don't know.

Dr. McClelland: "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple."

Secret Service agent Glen Bennett in the car behind. "hit the right rear high of the President’s head."

And so on. None of this proves or disproves anything.




I don't see a conspiracy or a theory. He just believes anything thats conspiracy related. An absolute dream customer for conspiracy writers. Just accepts it as gospel without asking any questions.




Not even quotes, actual facts. As below.



I then post McClellends own report saying it was a shot to the left temple and a recent speech where McClellend himself says "the right side of his brain had been blown out" and its totally ignored! Hilarious stuff.

Not ignored. You have discovered nothing new.




Yes I do expect a better source if you claiming Dr McCellend said the head wound was caused by a shot from behind

I can see I am right because of this image.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes I do expect a better source if you claiming Dr McCellend said the head wound was caused by a shot from behind

The "source" is the origin of conspiracy in the case as it first cast doubt on the throat wound. Its a very very well known and referenced article.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I can see I am right because of this image.

lol. Thats an idiotic post. Selective at its most obvious. Garden variety conspiracy theorist behaviour.

Take Dr Carrico for example.

Now look at this video.

So we I can see you are wrong because of that image.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Thats an idiotic post. Take Dr Carrico for example.

Now look at this video.

Dr Carrico is the second picture in. He got black hair. He hand is behind the head. Even the video is behind the ear.

Do you not see where the supposed exit wound is on the Zapruder film? It a wound in front of the right ear near the forehead. Dr Carrico is placing his hand near the parietal lobe and near the occipital lobe.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Even the video is behind the ear.

"side of the head"

banie01

The Nal wrote: »

"side of the head"

Further proof the CS sees only what they want to see.
There is most definitely a psychological paper to written based on this and the 9/11 threads.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

"side of the head"

Can you not his hand extend back to the rear?

The Zapruder film there no wound behind the right ear, or back portion of the head.

The Nal

banie01 wrote: »

Further proof the CS sees only what they want to see.

Incredible isn't it?!

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Incredible isn't it?!

I can see where the head wound is on the Zapruder film. Front of the right ear, and covers almost the entire forehead.



You can see the fakery in this image. The terrible animation job, with the blood, and blackening out the wound at the back of the head.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I can see where the head wound is on the Zapruder film. Front of the right ear, and covers almost the entire forehead.



You can see the fakery in this image. The terrible animation job, with the blood, and blackening out the wound at the back of the head.

It was impossible to edit a video like that in 1963. End of. Its a silly theory.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Further proof the CS sees only what they want to see.
There is most definitely a psychological paper to written based on this and the 9/11 threads.

I can see Carrico hand extends back behind the ear to rear side.

The wound on Zapruder film is clearly wrong.