Brane Space: In One Blockbuster JFK Assassination Documentary 7 Parkland Doctors Expose The Chicanery Of The Warren Commission

Since this year marks the 60th anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, a number of docu -specials are rolling out to revisit (and, in some cases, reexamine) that tragic day in Dallas, Texas. To be sure probably half or more will seek to reinforce the Warren Whitewash bunkum that Oswald acted alone and was deranged or “mad” at JFK – which is total hogwash. Or that only three bullets were fired (The 'Single Bullet' theory i.e. that one bullet made all the wounds in JFK and Gov. Connally).

One of these whitewash efforts (JFK: One Day In America) is a 3-part propaganda effort from National Geographic, which purports to "tell the real story of what happened and its aftermath in real time using archives and testimony from the last surviving witnesses". Good. Trouble is, it's mostly cherry-picked, highly curated - the witnesses' remarks edited - so it ends up as mostly recycled Warrenite rubbish- which Nat Geo has pumped out since 2011, e.g.

NAT GEO Continues with the Elites' Kennedy Whitewash Agenda (1)

Probably the worst guy to interview of all was former Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who was behind the convertible with JFK and Jackie. Hill is best remembered for mindlessly ruminating about Jackie's motion over the limo trunk (in a NOVA 'cold case' special from August. 2016) when she made it clear in her (secret) WC testimony she was trying to retrieve a dislodged piece of skull. But Hill ignored that in favor of supporting a rear entry wound which conformed to the WC baloney.

By comparison, we have the vastly more compelling (and objective) JFK: What the Doctors Saw, a documentary featuring previously unreleased footage — and the testimony of seven doctors who were actually there in the emergency room of Parkland Hospital trying to save Kennedy’s life after he was shot as his motorcade passed through Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963. This is critical because these were the people who observed the actual wounds and hence ought to KNOW a hell of a lot more than casual witnesses who may not even properly recall the details from 60 years ago. (Of course, the ones that would have been more reliable witnesses are all dead, like Lee Bowers and S.M. Holland who observed activity behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll just before the shots rang out.)

JFK: What the Doctors Saw premiered yesterday on Paramount+ and ought to be finally raising serious doubts about the lone assassin tale among a recalcitrant media and officialdom. I.e. that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing JFK (Oswald was shot to death two days later by local nightclub owner Jack Ruby as he was escorted through the Dallas Police building). Indeed, as the best documentary in the past two years (by Oliver Stone):

'JFK Through The Looking Glass' - A Superb Oliver Stone Documentary (But Perhaps Too Much For Casual Viewers)

Notes, what we have is a conspiracy without any involvement of Lee Oswald at all.

But if the Warren Commission (and the Nat Geo fable) is to be believed (which it emphatically isn't), two shots fired by Oswald from the Texas School Book Depository entered Kennedy from behind. The first bullet came through his upper back and out near his larynx, and the second entered the right side of his head and exited through his forehead. But I already dismembered this horse manure in a previous (FAQ) post for the 50th anniversary:

Brane Space: Frequently Asked Questions on the JFK Assassination (Pt. 5):The Bullets, Wounds

JFK: What the Doctors Saw meanwhile, thankfully tosses cold water on that misbegotten version of events- and particularly the latest Nat Geo fabulism.

Parkland Doctor marks actual position of the exit wound. This corresponds to what is visible in the actual autopsy photo (bottom)

As the executive producer Jacqueline Lueth revealed to Rolling Stone:

“I became involved with the story because one of my personal physicians told me he was in the emergency room at Parkland Hospital when JFK was brought in. He introduced me to six of the other doctors who were there that day and when I interviewed them, I began to realize their observations from Trauma Room 1 didn’t match the government story.”

The reason, of course, is that the government story was pure twaddle which would have been obvious to anyone diving deeply into the case. (See my FAQ blog post link above)

She adds, “Based upon my interviews with the doctors, Jim Jenkins and Robert Tanenbaum, and my own research, there’s no question in my mind there was a government cover-up.”

The doctors in the film contend one of the bullets that hit JFK entered through his throat, meaning it was an entrance wound from the front — and that there were potentially two gunmen, with the other firing from the rear. The Zapruder film frame (225) catching the throat impact is shown below along with an image of Dr. Perry and his placement of the wound 60 years ago.:

As an entry wound the entry point is marked in relation to the tie knot at the right) . In the exclusive video clip at the top of this post, from JFK: What the Doctors Saw, two of the Parkland doctors remember the initial testimony of Dr. Malcolm Perry, the surgeon who attended to JFK (and later Oswald).

Dr. Robert McClelland, some years after the Warren Commission Report was published was blunt about the location of the massive rear wound to the head:

In the current documentary he offered.

“So, at the press conference, Dr. Perry, in describing the [throat] wound here, said that he thought it looked like an entrance wound,”

Dr. Ronald Jones, another Parkland doctor adds:

“So, we were thinking there were two wounds. Had to be an entrance wound and an exit wound. That was the only way we could put it together. And so, I thought it was an entrance wound,”

Then, Dr. McClelland recalled something chilling that he witnessed after the presser:

“When [Dr. Perry] left the room, someone came up to him who Dr. Perry thought maybe was a Secret Service man, and he told Dr. Perry,

‘You must never, ever say that was an entrance wound again if you know what’s good for you.’”

I had written about this over a year ago (March, 2022) in the Intertel journal Integra, (Vol. L, No. 3) that the scoundrel and traitor was none other than former Secret Service agent and Kennedy hater Elmer Moore.

Long time researcher James Di Eugenio (in ‘Reclaiming Parkland, p. 143) writes that:

“It had always been a mystery as to why Perry and the other Dallas doctors had changed their original remarks and gone along with the SBT (single bullet theory) for the Warren Commission”

Di Eugenio then tagged Elmer Moore as the culprit.

Author James Douglass (‘JFK and the Unspeakable’, p. 309) elaborated:

“Moore confessed his intimidation of Dr. Perry to a University of Washington graduate student, Jim Gochenaur, with whom he became friendly with in Seattle in 1970. Moore told Gochenaur he had ‘badgered Dr. Perry into making a flat statement that there was no entry wound in the neck. Moore then admitted ‘I regret I had to do that with Dr. Perry.”

The one Parkland surgeon who came out in real time with what he saw was Charles Crenshaw, who documented his observations of the wounds in a book ‘JFK: Conspiracy of Silence’);

http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Conspiracy_Of_Silence.pdf

And suffered character assassination for his efforts. This was also noted by James Douglass (op. cit. p. 310), citing two scurrilous articles in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in its May 27, 1992 issue. One even suggesting Dr. Crenshaw was not even in Trauma Room One with Kennedy. Dr. Crenshaw, not one to take it on the chin and walk away,

“submitted several subsequent articles making it clear that in testimony before the Warren Commission five different Parkland doctors specifically mentioned seeing him working with them to revive the president.”

Alas, all the submissions were rejected by JAMA after which Dr. Crenshaw sued the journal. Finally, as author Douglass relates (ibid.): “In 1994 through court-ordered mediation, JAMA agreed to pay Dr. Crenshaw and his co-author Gary Shaw a sum of money. JAMA also agreed to their rebuttals.”

Barbara Shearer, the director and executive producer of JFK: What the Doctors Saw, explains the documentary’s revelations to Rolling Stone thusly:

“An entry wound to the neck — or to the front of JFK’s body — indicates a shot from the front. The idea being, there had to be a gunman in front of JFK if the bullet entered through his neck. That perspective runs contrary to the common narrative of JFK being shot from behind, by a lone gunman.”

That is as simple and basic as it gets, and conforms with Newton’s laws of motion as I noted in my FAQ post on the wounds. This is especially regarding the transfer of linear momentum for a bullet entering the front of the skull and exiting in the rear – which also explains Jackie’s motion over the rear of the limo to try to retrieve a dislodged occipital bone fragment. None of this should be particularly mystifying. As Oliver Stone pointed out in his 50th anniversary interview on Democracy Now:

"I've had a fair of amount of combat experience. When you look at the basics of the film, it's all there it doesn't need to be elaborated upon. You see Kennedy get hit in the throat, then you see him get hit in the back then get hit from the front. When he gets the hit from the front he goes back and to the left. That's the basic evidence because he gets hit right here (pointing to right temple).

Many of the witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda saw a massive exit wound to the rear of his skull. Doctors at Parkland, including McLelland, saw the remains of his brain almost falling out the back of his skull.... When people are in combat they go with the bullet wounds and directions of firing inferred from them. This is essential. From this we know there had to be at least one shooter from the front."

The last quarter of the documentary goes to the other fraud aspect of the case- namely the heist of JFK's body out of Parkland (where the autopsy should have been conducted - to Bethesda Naval Hospital where a fake autopsy occurred.) As Doug Horne, a member of the 1995 Assassinations Review Board noted, the purpose was to "sanitize" all the actual evidence to make it look like there were no frontal shots, only shots from the rear. Which would have knocked out the conspiracy aspect in favor of the "lone nut" (Oswald) at the Texas School Book Depository. This narrative, indeed, is the one the debased Warren Commission wanted, which would expedite rapid closure of the case. And also leave the political -media class (and intel agencies) free from having to explain how a president could be gunned down in a triangulation of gunfire in a motorcade in a major American city.

So to that end, as Horne relates, at Bethesda - under military oversight and orders- all the metal bullet fragments were removed from the brain, which would have enabled the path of cavitation to be inferred. Then the fraud compounded by the culprits using mortician's plaster to "repair" the back of the head - essentially removing the massive rear exit wound. The sanitized photo from the fake autopsy at Bethesda, with the massive rear exit wound 'erased' is shown here:

This can be compared with the earlier image from the doctors' observations. Most irritating is even after this fraud was exposed one beheld a Warrenite stooge - Dr. Michael Baden - insisting that what he observed from Bethesda was genuine and there was not evidence of an exit wound in the rear, or of a frontal shot to the head. Fairly incomprehensible given the actual images e.g.

had been widely distributed by the time of the Baden interview for the documentary. It was this frontal entry wound captured in frame 314 of the Zapruder film:

But perhaps this is how we distinguish quack pathologists from serious ones, like Dr. Cyril Wecht who (like Doug Horne) saw right through the Bethesda effort as a pile of rubbish. It was solely intended to conform to the Warren Commission bunkum which is why two inexperienced guys (Drs. Humes and Boswell) were selected to do the fake autopsy - as opposed to the experienced docs at Parkland.

My two regrets in all this are:

1- the Parkland doctors now going on record didn't come 0ut thirty years earlier, instead of leaving Charles Crenshaw to take all the blowback from the media and the AMA. It could have spared us decades of media Warren Report bullshit hiding the real planners, killers.

2- This ground breaking doc is only available on a streaming platform so likely gets nowhere near the same viewers, as it would if televised on a primary network - like CBS (the parent company of Paramount +). But one needs to be grateful for small favors and I guess better late than never as far as the Parkland drs. there at the scene in November, 1963!

Blog readers can at least see a short clip from the documentary at top.