JOHN CANAL SAID:
The mistake [intentional?] was to shove the photos of an undamaged rear scalp in their faces [i.e., the faces of 4 Parkland doctors in 1988 for the PBS-TV program "Who Shot President Kennedy?"] and ask them if they had any second thoughts regarding their original claim they had seen a BOH wound.
Their choices were:
1) the photos are fakes, or
2) my recollections must be wrong.
Some chose--surprise, surprise--not to accuse the USG of faking official photos and waivered [sic] regarding their original recollections.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID (ON NOVEMBER 14, 2008):
The comments made by the four Parkland Hospital doctors (McClelland, Dulany, Peters, and Jenkins) on the NOVA PBS-TV program in 1988 make no sense whatsoever (when you stop to think about it for more than a couple of seconds).
They EACH said that the autopsy photos depicted the President's body in just exactly the way that each doctor remembers seeing Kennedy at Parkland. And yet the exact opposite is (of course) true -- i.e., before viewing the photos at the National Archives, each doctor pointed to the REAR of their heads for the PBS camera (which is where they all said the large exit wound was located on JFK's head--with Dulany actually pointing to the CENTER area of the back of his head, nearer the cowlick or the EOP area).
They then go and view the photos and then claim, on camera, that the wounds in the pictures are exactly the same as what they said they saw at Parkland.
That's just nuts. It cannot possibly be kosher.
And McClelland's possible explanation for why this is the case is just nuts too (IMO) -- because if McClelland were right about the flap of scalp being pulled up over the larger wound underneath that scalp...it would, of course, mean that Kennedy's scalp must have been peeled back in that manner while JFK was at Parkland....and we know that didn't happen.
Kennedy's scalp wasn't peeled back like a banana at Parkland...which means that there was no way in Hades for McClelland and the other doctors to have seen any underlying hole in the back of Kennedy's head at Parkland (per McClelland's oddball "the scalp was pulled up, which hid the large hole" theory).
I don't know what "pressures" those doctors were under in 1988 when they viewed those autopsy photos for PBS-TV's NOVA program, but their explanations after seeing the photos do not mesh at all with their comments and the physical demonstration that each doctor performed for the camera before going in to see those pictures.
I hate to utter my theory on this -- for fear of being laughed out of the country. But I will say it anyway:
I think it's possible that those doctors were just flat-out embarrassed to admit that they were wrong when it came to locating the true location of JFK's large head wound.
The photos have been authenticated by the HSCA. And the photos positively depict President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy. And each doctor surely must have known those facts before viewing the pictures at the Archives in 1988.
After seeing the various photos which undeniably PROVE that they were each wrong about where they originally said the large wound on JFK's head was located, the doctors still could not bring themselves to say this to the NOVA camera --- "After looking at these photos, I must admit that I was mistaken when I said that the President's large head wound was located in the far-right-rear portion of his head. I must have been in error. And these photographs prove that I was in error."
Instead, the four doctors said that the photos somehow CORROBORATED their original belief regarding JFK's head wounds. But we know the photos do not corroborate a single one of those doctors.
I guess the doctors at Parkland don't like to admit they made an innocent error.
~shrug~
IN MAY 2009, ANOTHER LONE-ASSASSIN
BELIEVER (NICK KENDRICK) SAID:
I think it's simpler than that, David. The doctors (none of whom examined the head wound in detail, since they had no reason to do so) had an impression that there was a massive wound in the back of the head.
With blood congealing at this area when the President was on his back, it was an absolutely understandable reaction from doctors who were working under great pressure, on their own bloodied President, with no time to study the wounds.
When they saw the autopsy photographs, they stated the pictures were basically what they saw in the operating room. Essentially, they were simply conceding they were mistaken about where they believed the wound to be. Highly understandable errors, from very decent doctors.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But I don't understand why the doctors couldn't have been completely forthright, however, after viewing the photos at the National Archives.
Let me be clear(er) --- I don't think for a second that the doctors were part of some "conspiracy", but their comments on the 1988 NOVA program do not mesh with what they each said about the wounds prior to seeing the autopsy pictures.
Dr. Pepper Jenkins came the closest to providing a full-fledged "I was wrong" declaration, when Jenkins conceded that the exit wound was more to the SIDE of JFK's head, instead of his previously-stated opinion of the wound being entirely posterior.
And at least two of the doctors did, indeed, say they were mistaken about seeing "cerebellum" oozing out of President Kennedy's head.
But the doctors could still have been more forthright on the NOVA program, IMO. And McClelland's explanation about the "scalp pulling" is just ludicrous. Because, as I mentioned, if that were true, it would HAVE to mean that JFK's scalp was reflected (peeled) back on his head in the Parkland ER....and that's nuts, because it wasn't "reflected" at all.
Anyway, that's my $0.02.
JOHN CANAL SAID:
Bizarre theory--yes, I agree. But the SBT is a little bizarre, and it's true, isn't it? Also, what would be more bizarre than both my theory and the SBT is the notion that close to 30 credible witnesses were collectively wrong about what they said they saw....and basing that notion on photos and x-rays!!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I disagree, John.
When it comes down to a choice between:
1.) AUTHENTIC (unaltered) photographs and X-rays of President Kennedy's body;
or:
2.) The observations of witnesses (even though there were a lot of them in the "Large BOH Wound" camp)....
I think we've got to go with #1, the photographs and X-rays.
And the photographs AND X-rays are particularly impressive in a "No BOH Wound" and "High (Cowlick) Entry Hole" fashion in this [JFK] case....because ALL of those photos and X-rays are CORROBORATING each other with respect to those two conclusions (No Large BOH Wound and Cowlick Entry)!
Whereas, you (John Canal) have ZERO pieces of photographic evidence to support EITHER of your "BOH" theories (i.e., Large-ish Hole In The BOH and EOP Entry).
IMO, the HARD evidence (which are the photos and X-rays--in tandem!) simply must trump the "BOH" witnesses at Parkland AND Bethesda.
Logical Question:
What was the whole point of even taking any of the autopsy pictures and X-rays, John, if it wasn't to demonstrate the TRUE AND ACCURATE NATURE OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S WOUNDS AT HIS AUTOPSY?
Can anyone REALLY believe that ALL of the photos and X-rays (in unison!), not to mention the Zapruder Film to a lesser extent, are telling a totally FALSE tale regarding the President's head wounds?
Is that a logical thing to believe? In my opinion, it is not.
David Von Pein
May 25, 2009
