JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Ray Mitcham on March 09, 2022, 12:31:07 PM

Title: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 09, 2022, 12:31:07 PM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 10, 2022, 04:31:39 PM
Surprised at the lack of comment from the lone Nutter brigade.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 10, 2022, 11:06:40 PM
Surprised at the lack of comment from the lone Nutter brigade.

Why would you single out the "Nutter brigade" when it's obvious that no one of any persuasion had commented on this thread until you bumped it?

But let's get serious, the evidence that the official Autopsy report is authentic is overwhelming and I don't know why you people continue to rely on people who never even closely examined the cleaned up wound.

At the end of the day;

we have the Zapruder film showing a wound over the right ear and a bone flap hinged towards the front.
we have the Nix film showing a spray towards the front
we have the initial eyewitnesses who were interviewed on TV in the next hour or two and all say the wound was as seen in Zapruder
we have the autopsy photos showing the same wound with the same bone flap
we have the Xrays showing the same wound.
we have a stack of eyewitnesses who all describe the same wound

(https://i.postimg.cc/wMvv33Rt/alotofevidencek-zps98fb39dc.jpg)

You have some people who aren't consistent on where the wound was, never touched the wound and only saw a blood drenched head. The reason that an Official Autopsy is conducted is so that the cleaned up body can be examined closely for many hours whereas a fleeting glimpse in horrendous conditions for only minutes is never going to be reliable.

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 10, 2022, 11:29:06 PM
Why would you single out the "Nutter brigade" when it's obvious that no one of any persuasion had commented on this thread until you bumped it?

But let's get serious, the evidence that the official Autopsy report is authentic is overwhelming and I don't know why you people continue to rely on people who never even closely examined the cleaned up wound.

At the end of the day;

we have the Zapruder film showing a wound over the right ear and a bone flap hinged towards the front.
we have the Nix film showing a spray towards the front
we have the initial eyewitnesses who were interviewed on TV in the next hour or two and all say the wound was as seen in Zapruder
we have the autopsy photos showing the same wound with the same bone flap
we have the Xrays showing the same wound.
we have a stack of eyewitnesses who all describe the same wound

(https://i.postimg.cc/wMvv33Rt/alotofevidencek-zps98fb39dc.jpg)

You have some people who aren't consistent on where the wound was, never touched the wound and only saw a blood drenched head. The reason that an Official Autopsy is conducted is so that the cleaned up body can be examined closely for many hours whereas a fleeting glimpse in horrendous conditions for only minutes is never going to be reliable.

JohnM

BS

There are more people who were actually present at the autopsy that say that what they saw does not match what's in the autopsy report. 

Paul O'Connor and Jim Jenkins actually participated in the autopsy and were there from the beginning to the end. To claim that they only had a fleeting glimpse of the wounds is simply a classic Mytton misrepresentation of the facts.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 11, 2022, 12:07:13 AM

"The video presented above features Paul K. O'Connor being questioned while on the witness stand during the 1986 television docu-trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald".

The late Mr. O'Connor was a technician at Bethesda Naval Hospital who assisted at President Kennedy's autopsy on the night of November 22, 1963.

In the above video, O'Connor is first questioned by defense lawyer Gerry Spence (who was representing his "client", Lee Harvey Oswald), and then "U.S. Government" prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi gets a chance to cross-examine O'Connor, with Vince exposing the inaccuracies being told by the witness with respect to his outrageous allegation of: "There was no brain [in JFK's head] to be removed [at the autopsy]".

There are many conspiracy theorists who put their complete faith in O'Connor's wild tales, even though (to my knowledge) he is the only witness on the planet who ever said he saw all four of these crazy and impossible things on 11/22/63:

1.) There was no brain at all in President Kennedy's head.

2.) There was a huge wound in the back (occipital) portion of JFK's head.

3.) President Kennedy was inside a body bag when he was removed from the casket at Bethesda (instead of being wrapped merely in sheets, as all the autopsy doctors have said).

4.) JFK arrived at Bethesda in a cheap "shipping" type casket.

That #1 item alone makes O'Connor out to be an enormous fraud/kook/nutcase (take your pick). Because there was a whole lot of brain left inside Kennedy's head when he arrived at Bethesda. In fact, the majority of his brain was still inside his cranium when he arrived at the Bethesda morgue. [See Warren Commission Final Report, Page 544.]

Therefore, O'Connor's ridiculous assertion that the entire brain (save a few small "bits and pieces") was gone is reason enough right there, in my opinion, to pretty much dismiss everything else he had to say about President John F. Kennedy's autopsy."

David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/paul-oconnor.html
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 11, 2022, 12:57:05 AM

"The video presented above features Paul K. O'Connor being questioned while on the witness stand during the 1986 television docu-trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald".

The late Mr. O'Connor was a technician at Bethesda Naval Hospital who assisted at President Kennedy's autopsy on the night of November 22, 1963.

In the above video, O'Connor is first questioned by defense lawyer Gerry Spence (who was representing his "client", Lee Harvey Oswald), and then "U.S. Government" prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi gets a chance to cross-examine O'Connor, with Vince exposing the inaccuracies being told by the witness with respect to his outrageous allegation of: "There was no brain [in JFK's head] to be removed [at the autopsy]".

There are many conspiracy theorists who put their complete faith in O'Connor's wild tales, even though (to my knowledge) he is the only witness on the planet who ever said he saw all four of these crazy and impossible things on 11/22/63:

1.) There was no brain at all in President Kennedy's head.

2.) There was a huge wound in the back (occipital) portion of JFK's head.

3.) President Kennedy was inside a body bag when he was removed from the casket at Bethesda (instead of being wrapped merely in sheets, as all the autopsy doctors have said).

4.) JFK arrived at Bethesda in a cheap "shipping" type casket.

That #1 item alone makes O'Connor out to be an enormous fraud/kook/nutcase (take your pick). Because there was a whole lot of brain left inside Kennedy's head when he arrived at Bethesda. In fact, the majority of his brain was still inside his cranium when he arrived at the Bethesda morgue. [See Warren Commission Final Report, Page 544.]

Therefore, O'Connor's ridiculous assertion that the entire brain (save a few small "bits and pieces") was gone is reason enough right there, in my opinion, to pretty much dismiss everything else he had to say about President John F. Kennedy's autopsy."

David Von Pein

There are many conspiracy theorists who put their complete faith in O'Connor's wild tales, even though (to my knowledge) he is the only witness on the planet who ever said he saw all four of these crazy and impossible things on 11/22/63:

1.) There was no brain at all in President Kennedy's head.

2.) There was a huge wound in the back (occipital) portion of JFK's head.

3.) President Kennedy was inside a body bag when he was removed from the casket at Bethesda (instead of being wrapped merely in sheets, as all the autopsy doctors have said).

4.) JFK arrived at Bethesda in a cheap "shipping" type casket.

That #1 item alone makes O'Connor out to be an enormous fraud/kook/nutcase (take your pick). Because there was a whole lot of brain left inside Kennedy's head when he arrived at Bethesda.


A perfect example of an LN telling outright lies. There is in fact plenty of corroboration for all the four things that O'Connor saw.

O'Connor was one of several people who saw the shipping casket. Jenkins, in the interview posted in the OP, actually confirms he did see that casket as well, with Kennedy in it, in a body bag, and Funeral home employee Van Hoessen also confirmed to the ARRB that he saw Kennedy's body in a plastic body bag. The autopsy doctors were not even present when O'Connor and others took Kennedy's body out of the casket and placed it on the autopsy table. It's was O'Connor's and Jenkins' job to prepare the body for the autopsy. Just like O'Connor, Jenkins also confirmed the huge wound in the back of JFK's head, as did Funeral home employee Tom Robinson.

It is true that O'Connor (who normally had the job of removing the brain, but on this occassion was told to move on to another procedure) said there was no brain left in Kennedy's head and Jenkins said in the interview that Dr. Boswell gave him a brian that had less than 1/3 missing, which is actually less than what the autopsy report said. However, Jenkins could not confirm that the brain he received was taken from Kennedy's head. The main reason he couldn't be sure was the fact that when Kennedy's head was unwrapped, it was noticed that there had been surgery to the head. FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill confirm this in their report. In the OP video Jenkins explains further that the incision made would have given access to the right side of the cranial cavity.

Therefore, O'Connor's ridiculous assertion that the entire brain (save a few small "bits and pieces") was gone is reason enough right there, in my opinion, to pretty much dismiss everything else he had to say about President John F. Kennedy's autopsy."

Well, mr Von Pein, all the lies you've just told is reason enough, in my opinion, to dismiss everything you've just said as 100% unreliable. And same goes of course for our expert in misrepresentations, who as per usual prefers to hide behind gifs and other person's opinions.


Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 11, 2022, 02:17:21 AM
The assassination only happened one way and there is a stack of physical evidence that proves it, it's bonkers to cherry pick some solitary nutcase and ignore the mountain of evidence that authenticates the Official Autopsy results.

Just one example which all alone disproves any CT fantasy. A number of Autopsy photos were taken in stereoscopic pairs and when recombined they demonstrate 100% three dimensional mathematical precision, these computerised morphs use a technology unheard of in the early decades after the assassination and demonstrate how beyond all doubt that the person in these photographs is JFK and these wounds are the ones photographed shortly after the assassination. The Official Autopsy is Authenticated!

The exploded wound on the top of Kennedy's head.

(https://i.postimg.cc/L4WmFjMP/JFK-Autopsy-Morph.gif)

The bullet wound.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Bn9sXsbQ/exportscalp.gif)

The back of Kennedy's head has a solitary bullet wound and the bone flap on the RHS is seen in the Zapruder film, every piece of the official authentic evidence corroborates itself whereas desperate Kooks relying on attention seeking Kooks, is a waste of everybody's time. Btw the back of Kennedy's head can be verified by the neck creases which are like fingerprints and in addition Kennedy's ear size, shape and proportion in relation to the rest of Kennedy's head.

(https://i.postimg.cc/XNK7drMB/BOH-JFK.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/Wp06Zwbm/Bone-flap.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 11, 2022, 02:41:43 AM

The assassination only happened one way and there is a stack of physical evidence that proves it, it's bonkers to cherry pick some solitary nutcase and ignore the mountain of evidence that authenticates the Official Autopsy results.

Just one example which all alone disproves any CT fantasy. A number of Autopsy photos were taken in stereoscopic pairs and when recombined they demonstrate 100% three dimensional mathematical precision, these computerised morphs use a technology unheard of in the early decades after the assassination and demonstrate how beyond all doubt that the person in these photographs is JFK and these wounds are the ones photographed shortly after the assassination. The Official Autopsy is Authenticated!

The exploded wound on the top of Kennedy's head.

The bullet wound.

The back of Kennedy's head has a solitary bullet wound and the bone flap on the RHS is seen in the Zapruder film, every piece of the official authentic evidence corroborates itself whereas desperate Kooks relying on attention seeking Kooks, is a waste of everybody's time. Btw the back of Kennedy's head can be verified by the neck creases which are like fingerprints and in addition Kennedy's ear size, shape and proportion in relation to the rest of Kennedy's head.

JohnM

The assassination only happened one way and there is a stack of physical evidence that proves it, it's bonkers to cherry pick some solitary nutcase and ignore the mountain of evidence that authenticates the Official Autopsy results.

To rely on the so-called "offical autopsy photos" (that were never authenticated) as proof that the official autopsy photos and the autopsy results are authentic is what's really bonkers, when you have a large group of people who were all there and all tell pieces of a story that clearly conflicts by the official narrative.

It's not a solitary nutcase... It's O'Connor, Jenkins, Custer, David, Sibert, O'Neill, Robinson, Van Hoessen and others. They are all men who had nothing to gain and everything to lose by lying. To dismiss their collective story in favor of a (re-written) autopsy report and some photos that were never authenticated and hidden away from the public for years is basically saying there must have been a conspiracy against the WC commission and the FBI, which was initially surpressed by hiding the "evidence" and only came to light in the late 70's/early 80's. Well, is that what you are saying? Or is it you idiotic opinion that so many people at Parkland and Bethesda all saw things that were not there and/or never happened?

I don't give a damn what you claim the photos show and that won't change until you can actually authenticate those photos. O'Connor and Jenkins did, on average three autopsies a day. Humes, Boswell et all never did an autopsy in their life and were chosen for one reason only; they were in the military and could be told what to do!
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 11, 2022, 02:47:16 AM
It is? Prove it. You can't.

Of course he can't. He just foolishly thinks that showing some photos will cause sufficient confusion.

Remember when the Parkland doctors were brought in to verify the autopsy photos? One by one they were taken into a room and shown photos, which, when they came out, they said showed the wounds they had seen at Parkland. What wasn't shown is which photos they saw. For all we know they were shown the actual photos instead of those we have been shown.

Jenkins, in the interview, said that photos were taken all the time during the autopsy, yet we've only seen a few and we can't even be sure they are authentic. What happened to all the other photos?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 11, 2022, 03:01:27 AM


Mr. SPECTER - And what have your duties consisted of in the Army?
Colonel FINCK - From 1955 to 1958 I performed approximately 200 autopsies, many of them pertaining to trauma including missile wounds, stationed at Frankfort, Germany as pathologist of the. United States Army Hospital in Frankfurt, Germany.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you had any additional, special training or experience in missile wounds?
Colonel FINCK - For the past 3 years I was Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and in that capacity I reviewed personally all the cases forwarded to us by the Armed Forces, and some civilian cases from the United States and our forces overseas. The number of these cases amounts to approximately 400 cases. I was called as a consultant in the field of missile wounds for this particular case, and also last year in February 1963, the Surgeon General of the Army sent me to Vietnam for a wound ballistics mission, I had to testify in a murder trial involving a 30/30 rifle in the first week of March this year, and I came back yesterday after one week in Panama where I had to testify. I was sent to Panama by the Secretary of the Army regarding the fatalities of the events of 9-10 in January of 1964.
\

(https://i.postimg.cc/3J5sY1WP/jfk-autopsy-report-last-page.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 11, 2022, 03:19:55 AM
It is? Prove it. You can't.

Huh? Pay attention!
I have already posted a stack of evidence in this very thread and you haven't even begun to refute 1 shred of it, you Mongo, being an "Engineer" who by definition must possess some semblance of an empirical mind, how about you tell me why I'm wrong, then if I consider your reply scientific and coherent then I'll consider responding. But until then you're just another angry CT who is just so goddamn mad that he can't think straight, don't worry, I see it all the time just look at Roger having another hissy fit. LMFAOYFD!

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 11, 2022, 03:30:06 AM
Huh? Pay attention!
I have already posted a stack of evidence in this very thread and you haven't even begun to refute 1 shred of it, you Mongo, being an "Engineer" who by definition must possess some semblance of an empirical mind, how about you tell me why I'm wrong, then if I consider your reply scientific and coherent then I'll consider responding. But until then you're just another angry CT who is just so goddamn mad that he can't think straight, don't worry, I see it all the time just look at Roger having another hissy fit. LMFAOYFD!

JohnM

Pay attention!

I have already posted a stack of evidence in this very thread

No, you haven't. You've only parroted the official narrative and failed completely to autheticate the photos.

then if I consider your reply scientific and coherent then I'll consider responding.

Says the self-appointed expert *  :D


* who hides behind a fake name, does not live where he claims to live and basically is only able to post misrepresentations and propaganda.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 11, 2022, 03:38:01 AM

Mr. SPECTER - And what have your duties consisted of in the Army?
Colonel FINCK - From 1955 to 1958 I performed approximately 200 autopsies, many of them pertaining to trauma including missile wounds, stationed at Frankfort, Germany as pathologist of the. United States Army Hospital in Frankfurt, Germany.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you had any additional, special training or experience in missile wounds?
Colonel FINCK - For the past 3 years I was Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and in that capacity I reviewed personally all the cases forwarded to us by the Armed Forces, and some civilian cases from the United States and our forces overseas. The number of these cases amounts to approximately 400 cases. I was called as a consultant in the field of missile wounds for this particular case, and also last year in February 1963, the Surgeon General of the Army sent me to Vietnam for a wound ballistics mission, I had to testify in a murder trial involving a 30/30 rifle in the first week of March this year, and I came back yesterday after one week in Panama where I had to testify. I was sent to Panama by the Secretary of the Army regarding the fatalities of the events of 9-10 in January of 1964.
\

JohnM

Which only shows the LN desperation. They can't show that Humes and Bosswell did any autopsies, so they come up with the life story of Finck, who did do some autopies five years before the Kennedy murder. That's a hell of a dream team for the autopsy of a murdered President. LMFAOYFD!
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 11, 2022, 03:56:49 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/d070zFW2/hsca-autopy-photo-authentication-1.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/6QDQKPSD/hsca-autopy-photo-authentication-2.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/2yY8bZCG/hsca-autopy-photo-authentication-3.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/HxXkk21j/hsca-autopy-photo-authentication-4.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 11, 2022, 04:03:56 AM
I thought LHO cornered the market on "Lone Nuts" but leave it to you to turn our attention to another "Nutjob". Why theres so many nut cases running around this case we might all just end up in an asylum!

(https://y.yarn.co/03a2fe1e-70c2-4caf-9339-1bb7da5813b8_text.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 11, 2022, 04:36:34 AM
(https://y.yarn.co/03a2fe1e-70c2-4caf-9339-1bb7da5813b8_text.gif)

JohnM

Your complete inability to make a coherent argument is exposing the pathetic weakness of your case.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 11, 2022, 07:42:31 PM
(https://y.yarn.co/03a2fe1e-70c2-4caf-9339-1bb7da5813b8_text.gif)

JohnM

 :D :D :D

The head-shot is filmed and can be examined in detail.
It is conclusive that there is no "blow-out" at the back of the head.
This cannot be denied.

(https://i.postimg.cc/RFV4RpQQ/Head-Shot-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

A cursory examination of the above clip shows that it is the top of JFK's head that is blown off.
This is evidenced by the massive crater that appears in the top of his head after the impact.
The large red mass of flesh that appears on the side of his head is the inside of his scalp which is torn near the crown of his head and blown over to the side.
A close examination of the clip above reveals this motion of the scalp at the crown of his head being blown over to the side.

The evidence of the wound demonstrated in the above clip is in perfect accordance with this Gif of JFK's head wound:

(https://i.postimg.cc/L4WmFjMP/JFK-Autopsy-Morph.gif)

With this film/photographic evidence in mind, how is it possible to explain the copious amounts of eye-witness testimony describing a gaping wound only at the back of the head and nowhere else?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 13, 2022, 03:35:56 PM
BS: alert!

What an insightful response to the evidence and arguments presented, demonstrating the film evidence of the head wound in the Z-film verifies the autopsy photos posted and vice versa.
A really inspiring response from someone who clearly wants to learn what actually happened that day and who is happy to consider evidence that might inform their opinion regarding the assassination of JFK.
A lesson to us all.

Further evidence the top of JFK's head was blown off is found in the Z-film.
At the moment of impact two powerful "jets" of, what I assume are skull and brain tissue can be clearly seen in the film. The main "jet" is picked out by the red arrow, the lesser "jet" by the yellow arrow:

(https://i.postimg.cc/qq1bNBdL/z313-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

In the frame below, the yellow line represents the line running through the top of his head. This is my own rough estimation and is made to give a general idea of the direction of the "Jets" (marked in red). There can be little doubt these powerful "jets" of skull/brain material are travelling in a straight line from the top of JFK's head. There is nothing even remotely similar exiting the back of his head.

(https://i.postimg.cc/xCwxHpkk/z313-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

The small fraction of one second this frame represents gives an idea of the speed and power of these "jets" exiting the top of JFK's head.

There is a weird moment in the video posted in the OP of the Jenkins interview (around thirty minute mark). At one point Jenkins describes the injury he sees to the skull:
With a model skull in his hand he places the position of the injury towards the back of the skull, right next to the occipital bone:

"The wound was here, approximately where my finger is [he places his finger on the back right of the skull, next to the occipital bone]...and it extended down here. It was about three and a half inches long...about two inches wide. That was where the missing bone was and the missing tissue was."


Here he is describing the classic "blow-out" injury to the back of the skull. A defined hole at the back of the skull. However, he then goes on to say:

"Remember, all of this portion [of the skull] in this area was fractured to the saggital suture[he indicates nearly the whole right side/top of the skull]...but it wasn't gone, it was still being kept intact by the scalp. The scalp had rents and tears in it [he indicates a line running along the saggital suture on the crown of the skull]...it seemed like some of those tears in the scalp had been surgically connected, little connections to follow the fracture line in here [again he indicates the length of the saggital suture on the crown of the skull]...
When Dr. Humes took the wrappings off the head, there was a secondary wrapping on it that I think was a towel...as he was taking it off this area kind of gapped open [he indicates that the whole top right side of the skull from the saggital suture downwards opened up] but as soon as we separated it from the towel it went back together."


Here, he is clearly describing the injury we can see occur in the Z-film. At the moment of impact the majority of the top right side of JFK
s scalp is blown to the side and is seen as a large mass of red flesh hanging by the side of his head. This is the exposed inside of JFK's scalp. It is also the injury seen in the autopsy Gif posted by John.
Jenkins goes on to confirm this:

"Now, that's significant for the fact is you could actually...lay this skull open, you could actually take your hands and separate it [he makes a motion with his hand to indicate the side of the skull could be opened up like a small, hinged door]. So, that would have given you access to the brain."

There can be no doubt that Jenkins is describing a massive wound to the whole top right side of JFK's skull and not just the defined area of the "blow-out" hole. What is weird is that he doesn't relate this massive injury to the headshot, he seems to believe that this was a procedure that was carried out before JFK's body reached Bethesda.
The Z-film shows he is wrong to believe this and that the large "hinged flap" of scalp/fractured skull was a direct result of the headshot.
So, Jenkins does see the massive skull wound that we see in the autopsy Gif but he doesn't recognise it for what it is.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 13, 2022, 04:20:53 PM

There can be no doubt that Jenkins is describing a massive wound to the whole top right side of JFK's skull and not just the defined area of the "blow-out" hole. What is weird is that he doesn't relate this massive injury to the headshot, he seems to believe that this was a procedure that was carried out before JFK's body reached Bethesda.
The Z-film shows he is wrong to believe this and that the large "hinged flap" of scalp/fractured skull was a direct result of the headshot.
So, Jenkins does see the massive skull wound that we see in the autopsy Gif but he doesn't recognise it for what it is.


Or he did see it for what it is; a blow out to the back of the head (where a part of the skull was missing) and an artificial enlargement of the wound and you are simply misinterpreting the Z film.


With this film/photographic evidence in mind, how is it possible to explain the copious amounts of eye-witness testimony describing a gaping wound only at the back of the head and nowhere else?

Why don't you try to answer your own question? Were all these people, who saw the head wound up close, wrong?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 13, 2022, 04:40:42 PM
Or he did see it for what it is; a blow out to the back of the head (where a part of the skull was missing) and an artificial enlargement of the wound and you are simply misinterpreting the Z film.

In what way, specifically, am I misinterpreting the Z-film?
The massive crater in the top of JFK's skull is obvious in the film but maybe you have a different interpretation of that.
The "jets" flying up from the top of JFKs head are on the film or is there something I'm missing.
The massive red flap of scalp can hardly be missed but maybe you have a better idea than me what it is.
The injury shown in the Z-film is corroborated by the autopsy Gif John posted.
It is the same injury Jenkins is describing, this also confirms the autopsy Gif which, in turn, corroborates the Z-film.

Rather than some flaky suggestion that my interpretation is wrong, let's have some specifics.
Give us an alternative interpretation.

Quote
Why don't you try to answer your own question? Were all these people, who saw the head wound up close, wrong?

Was Jenkins wrong?
He describes in detail the massive injury to the top right side of JFK's skull.
He describes perfectly how the whole side of JFK's skull came away, exposing the brain.
So that injury really existed, Jenkins describes it in detail. The autopsy pics show it. The Z-film shows it.
How much more evidence do you need?
What would convince you?
Can you be convinced, regardless how much evidence is presented?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 13, 2022, 05:34:33 PM

In what way, specifically, am I misinterpreting the Z-film?
The massive crater in the top of JFK's skull is obvious in the film but maybe you have a different interpretation of that.
The "jets" flying up from the top of JFKs head are on the film or is there something I'm missing.
The massive red flap of scalp can hardly be missed but maybe you have a better idea than me what it is.
The injury shown in the Z-film is corroborated by the autopsy Gif John posted.
It is the same injury Jenkins is describing, this also confirms the autopsy Gif which, in turn, corroborates the Z-film.

Rather than some flaky suggestion that my interpretation is wrong, let's have some specifics.
Give us an alternative interpretation.


Just repeating your conclusions doesn't make them correct. I did not say that your interpretation is wrong, just that it could be. Jenkins, who actually saw the wound up close, might have had a far better view than you possibly could have had from a video. You seem to rule out that possibility. Your apparant belief that you somehow have the superior knowledge is astounding, but hardly convincing.

Quote
Was Jenkins wrong?
He describes in detail the massive injury to the top right side of JFK's skull.
He describes perfectly how the whole side of JFK's skull came away, exposing the brain.
So that injury really existed, Jenkins describes it in detail. The autopsy pics show it. The Z-film shows it.

Well, let's see. Jenkins clearly shows us in the video, by using a skull, where the actual blast out wound was. That description is the same as that of O'Connor, Robinson, Custer, Van Hoessen and most of the Parkland ER staff that saw the head wound. Jenkins also explains how the larger wound was, in his opinion, the result of an artificial enlargement. FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill were present when the possibility of "surgery to the head" was being discussed in the autopsy room. They confirm it in their report.

So, it's not really a matter of Jenkins being wrong or not. The question - which you asked yourself but did not answer - is; are all these people wrong? Were Sibert and O'Neill (who Specter declined to call to testify, after an initial conversation) wrong and did they hear something that was never discussed?

Earlier in the thread, John Mytton, by quoting from David von Pein, tried to present Paul O'Connor as not credible. You are now singling out Jenkins, but neither you or Mytton have ever addressed the combined testimony of all the witnesses who disagree with the autopsy findings. Why is that?

Quote
How much more evidence do you need?
What would convince you?
Can you be convinced, regardless how much evidence is presented?

Evidence, which authenticity is called into question by the testimony of a substantial number of people, who all saw the actual wound, is hardly persuasive evidence. Neither is your interpretation of the Z film.

Several people, including Jenkins and Custer have expressed doubt about the authenticity of the autopsy photos, of which the one below is one.

(https://i.postimg.cc/XNK7drMB/BOH-JFK.gif)

The reason I find this picture highly questionable is the lack of a hole where the part of the skull was that was blown out and later found at Dealey Plaza. Can you explain this?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 13, 2022, 07:05:29 PM
Just repeating your conclusions doesn't make them correct.

You clearly don't understand the difference between an "observation" and a "conclusion".
The difference between the two is important.

"The massive crater in the top of JFK's skull is obvious in the film but maybe you have a different interpretation of that."

In the clip below focus on the top of JFK's head before the impact. Focus on the shape of it.
Immediately after the impact the large flap of scalp, described by Jenkins, appears at the side of his head.
As his head moves forward a massive crater is apparent at the top of his head.

(https://i.postimg.cc/RFV4RpQQ/Head-Shot-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

This is an extreme close up of JFK before the headshot. Note the shape of the top of his head:

(https://i.postimg.cc/LXb8kHsN/z292-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

This is an extreme close up of JFK after the headshot. Note the shape of the top of his head:

(https://i.postimg.cc/xdjmt102/z330-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

The difference is truly dramatic. There is a massive crater where the top of his head once was.
This is not a conclusion - it's an observation.

"The "jets" flying up from the top of JFKs head are on the film or is there something I'm missing."

At the moment of impact, two "jets" of skull/brain matter are fired high in the sky at tremendous speed. It is well known pieces of his skull were found in various locations. These two "jets" are shown clearly on the Z-film and are coming from the top of his head, confirming the pieces of skull were blown upwards and not backwards. The main "jet" is picked out by the red arrow, the lesser "jet" by the yellow arrow:

(https://i.postimg.cc/qq1bNBdL/z313-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

In the frame below, the yellow line represents the line running through the top of his head. This is my own rough estimation and is made to give a general idea of the direction of the "Jets" (marked in red). There can be little doubt these powerful "jets" of skull/brain material are travelling in a straight line from the top of JFK's head. There is nothing even remotely similar exiting the back of his head.

(https://i.postimg.cc/xCwxHpkk/z313-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

This is not a conclusion - it is an observation.

"The massive red flap of scalp can hardly be missed but maybe you have a better idea than me what it is."

In his interview, Jenkins describes the large head wound as scalp and skull opening away from the side of JFK's head. The impression he gives is of a large, hinged flap of scalp that could hang down by the right side of the head. This large flap of scalp is clearly visible in the Z-film hanging down by the side of JFK's head.
In the clip below pay particular attention to the large, pendulous strip of scalp that seems to sway forwards:

(https://i.postimg.cc/RFV4RpQQ/Head-Shot-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

This large portion of scalp is picked out by the yellow arrow in the frame below:

(https://i.postimg.cc/VvHSGqkQ/z330-2-a.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

This is not a conclusion - it is an observation.

Quote
I did not say that your interpretation is wrong, just that it could be.

But you don't provide any example of how it might be wrong.
You offer no analysis of the evidence and the arguments presented.
You just hide behind snide suggestions that my interpretation could be wrong or that it isn't persuasive
But what about it isn't persuasive?
What are the weaknesses of the arguments I'm presenting?
How about getting involved rather than just sniping from the sidelines.

Quote
Jenkins, who actually saw the wound up close, might have had a far better view than you possibly could have had from a video. You seem to rule out that possibility.

Where do I rule out that possibility or is this just more snide  BS: [this is actually a rhetorical question as the answer is obvious]

Quote
Well, let's see. Jenkins clearly shows us in the video, by using a skull, where the actual blast out wound was. That description is the same as that of O'Connor, Robinson, Custer and most of the Parkland ER staff that saw the head wound. Jenkins also explains how the larger wound was, in his opinion, the result of an artificial enlargement. FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill were present when the possibility of "surgery to the head" was being discussed in the autopsy room. They confirm it in their report.

So, it's not really a matter of Jenkins being wrong or not. The question - which you asked yourself but did not answer - is; are all these people wrong? Were Sibert and O'Neill (who Specter declined to call to testify, after an initial conversation) wrong and did they hear something that was never discussed?

Jenkins describes in detail the large injury to JFK's skull. He explains that the majority of the top right side of JFK's skull and scalp came away like a large flap that could be closed up again and that exposed the brain. it is described as s separate injury from the initial "blow-out" hole he describes at the back of the skull.
The large injury he describes is confirmed by the autopsy Gif below:

(https://i.postimg.cc/L4WmFjMP/JFK-Autopsy-Morph.gif)

In his interview. Jenkins makes an interesting point:

"When Dr. Humes took the wrappings off the head, there was a secondary wrapping on it that I think was a towel...as he was taking it off this area kind of gapped open [he indicates that the whole top right side of the skull from the saggital suture downwards opened up] but as soon as we separated it from the towel it went back together."

This large flap could be put back in place.
Anyone who saw JFK's head while it was in this condition would have no reason to suspect the full extent of the damage to his head.
The point, however, is that, regardless of his own opinion about it, Jenkins describes a massive injury to the side of JFK's skull that was like a flap that could be opened up.
In the Z-film we see a massive crater appear in the top of JFK's head after impact. This crater represents an absence of skull and scalp in that area. Some of the missing skull has been blown into the air [the "jets"] but a lot of it is still attached to the inside of the scalp [as described by Jenkins] which is hanging down by the side of JFK's head.

Quote
Evidence, which authenticity is called into question by the testimony of a substantial number of people, who all saw the actual wound, is hardly persuasive evidence. Neither is your interpretation of the Z film.

Film evidence of the head wound happening is "hardly persuasive"??
Jenkin's detailed description of the head wound is "hardly persuasive"??

The authenticity of what evidence is called into question?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 13, 2022, 07:16:45 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgMCkQ66/103-JACKIE-TOP.png)
billchapman
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 13, 2022, 07:48:19 PM
We can all see from the Z film that the kill shot came from either the front or the side.

No, you can't.

Quote
We also have seen compelling evidence from researchers like Thompson that there were likely 2 shots to the head within a second of each other, one being the kill shot.

The majority opinion is that there was one shot to the head.

Quote
So what does the exact location of the kill shot, whether top of head or closer to his right temple do to disprove any of this?

The two arguments derived from the head-shot that place a gunman to the front and right are the "blow-out" hole at the back of JFK's head and the "back and to the left" motion.

The Z-film shows there is no blow-out at the back of the head and strongly suggests that the "back and to the left" motion was caused by a shot from behind.
Understanding the dynamics of the headshot is key to understanding what can and cannot be assumed about potential sniper positions.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 13, 2022, 07:48:50 PM
You clearly don't understand the difference between an "observation" and a "conclusion".
The difference between the two is important.

This is just silly. Your observations are the basis for your conclusion.

Quote
"The massive crater in the top of JFK's skull is obvious in the film but maybe you have a different interpretation of that."

In the clip below focus on the top of JFK's head before the impact. Focus on the shape of it.
Immediately after the impact the large flap of scalp, described by Jenkins, appears at the side of his head.
As his head moves forward a massive crater is apparent at the top of his head.

(https://i.postimg.cc/RFV4RpQQ/Head-Shot-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

This is an extreme close up of JFK before the headshot. Note the shape of the top of his head:

(https://i.postimg.cc/LXb8kHsN/z292-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

This is an extreme close up of JFK after the headshot. Note the shape of the top of his head:

(https://i.postimg.cc/xdjmt102/z330-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

The difference is truly dramatic. There is a massive crater where the top of his head once was.
This is not a conclusion - it's an observation.

"The "jets" flying up from the top of JFKs head are on the film or is there something I'm missing."

At the moment of impact, two "jets" of skull/brain matter are fired high in the sky at tremendous speed. It is well known pieces of his skull were found in various locations. These two "jets" are shown clearly on the Z-film and are coming from the top of his head, confirming the top of his head was blown upwards and not backwards. The main "jet" is picked out by the red arrow, the lesser "jet" by the yellow arrow:

(https://i.postimg.cc/qq1bNBdL/z313-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

In the frame below, the yellow line represents the line running through the top of his head. This is my own rough estimation and is made to give a general idea of the direction of the "Jets" (marked in red). There can be little doubt these powerful "jets" of skull/brain material are travelling in a straight line from the top of JFK's head. There is nothing even remotely similar exiting the back of his head.

(https://i.postimg.cc/xCwxHpkk/z313-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

This is not a conclusion - it is an observation.


As I said earlier, your apparant belief that you somehow have the superior knowledge (or "observation") is astounding, but hardly convincing.

Quote
"The massive red flap of scalp can hardly be missed but maybe you have a better idea than me what it is."

In his interview, Jenkins describes the large head wound as scalp and skull opening away from the side of JFK's head. The impression he gives is of a large, hinged flap of scalp that could hang down by the right side of the head. This large flap of scalp is clearly visible in the Z-film hanging down by the side of JFK's head.
In the clip below pay particular attention to the large, pendulous strip of scalp that seems to sway forwards:

(https://i.postimg.cc/RFV4RpQQ/Head-Shot-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

This large portion of scalp is picked out by the yellow arrow in the frame below:

(https://i.postimg.cc/VvHSGqkQ/z330-2-a.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

This is not a conclusion - it is an observation.


Thank you for sharing your "observations".

Quote
But you don't provide any example of how it might be wrong.
You offer no analysis of the evidence and the arguments presented.
You just hide behind snide suggestions that my interpretation could be wrong or that it isn't persuasive
But what about it isn't persuasive?
What are the weaknesses of the arguments I'm presenting?
How about getting involved rather than just sniping from the sidelines.

Since when do I have to provide anything to disprove your "observations"? What isn't persuasive is the fact that all your "observations" are self-serving. The weakness of your arguments is that you can not provide anything authentic or conclusive. You can not even answer the question you asked yourself. If you (and your conclusions observations are correct, how do you explain the multitude of witnesses (who were actually there) that tell a different story? Are they all lying?

Quote

Where do I rule out that possibility or is this just more snide  BS: [this is actually a rhetorical question as the answer is obvious]


Your entire posturing yells out that you rule out the possibility that Jenkins was right and you are wrong. 

Quote
Jenkins describes in detail the large injury to JFK's skull. He explains that the majority of the top right side of JFK's skull and scalp came away like a large flap that could be closed up again and that exposed the brain. it is described as s separate injury from the initial "blow-out" hole he describes at the back of the skull.
The large injury he describes is confirmed by the autopsy Gif below:

(https://i.postimg.cc/L4WmFjMP/JFK-Autopsy-Morph.gif)

In his interview. Jenkins makes an interesting point:

"When Dr. Humes took the wrappings off the head, there was a secondary wrapping on it that I think was a towel...as he was taking it off this area kind of gapped open [he indicates that the whole top right side of the skull from the saggital suture downwards opened up] but as soon as we separated it from the towel it went back together."

This large flap could be put back in place.
Anyone who saw JFK's head while it was in this condition would have no reason to suspect the full extent of the damage to his head.
The point, however, is that, regardless of his own opinion about it, Jenkins describes a massive injury to the side of JFK's skull that was like a flap that could be opened up.
In the Z-film we see a massive crater appear in the top of JFK's head after impact. This crater represents an absence of skull and scalp in that area. Some of the missing skull has been blown into the air [the "jets"] but a lot of it is still attached to the inside of the scalp [as described by Jenkins] which is hanging down by the side of JFK's head.


There you go again. Jenkins didn't understand what he saw, but I [Dan o'meara] do. That's what you are saying. And of course you ignore all the corroboration provided by a large number of witnesses.

Quote
Film evidence of the head wound happening is "hardly persuasive"??
Jenkin's detailed description of the head wound is "hardly persuasive"??

The authenticity of what evidence is called into question?

Film evidence of the head wound happening is "hardly persuasive"??

What file evidence would that be? The Z film has been argued about since people first saw it. There is nothing conclusive or persuasive about it. You think you see one thing and can not imagine that somebody else might see something different.

Jenkin's detailed description of the head wound is "hardly persuasive"??

No, it's your out of context interpretation of his description that isn't persuasive

The authenticity of what evidence is called into question?

The autopsy evidence you rely on, but you will never see that because your opinion is the only correct one, right?

Too bad you ran from answering my question about the authenticity of one of the autopsy photos showing an intact back of the head, when we know that part of the skull was left behind in Dealey Plaza.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 13, 2022, 07:56:48 PM

We can all see from the Z film that the kill shot came from either the front or the side.


No, you can't.

And there you go again, claiming to know better than others.

Quote

The majority opinion is that there was one shot to the head.


First of all; what majority opinion would that be? Name names...

Secondly: an appeal to a majority is a fallacious argument which is based on affirming that something is real or better because the majority thinks so.

Quote
The two arguments derived from the head-shot that place a gunman to the front and right are the "blow-out" hole at the back of JFK's head and the "back and to the left" motion.

The Z-film shows there is no blow-out at the back of the head and strongly suggests that the "back and to the left" motion was caused by a shot from behind.
Understanding the dynamics of the headshot is key to understanding what can and cannot be assumed about potential sniper positions.

So, now your observations about what you see is not only superior, but you also understand the dynamics of the headshot better than anybody else?

Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 13, 2022, 09:45:00 PM
This is just silly. Your observations are the basis for your conclusion.

Well done, you seem to have grasped the difference between observations and conclusions  Thumb1:
The only silly thing was your snide comment - "Just repeating your conclusions doesn't make them correct."
And yes, the observations form my interpretation of events and when I've looked into as much evidence as I can I will make my conclusions.
I'm not sure if you would approach this differently because you seem to lack the confidence to make an interpretation of the evidence.

Quote
As I said earlier, your apparant belief that you somehow have the superior knowledge (or "observation") is astounding, but hardly convincing.

Oh dear, now you seem to be struggling with the concepts of "observation" and "knowledge".
Making an observation isn't the same as having knowledge, superior or otherwise.
The Z-film shows a massive crater in JFK's head after the headshot - fact
It also shows two distinct "jets" of what I assume are skull fragments and brain matter emanating from the top of JFK's head at enormous speed.
Are these two observations linked? I certainly think so.
I also observe a large flap of scalp hanging down by the side of his head after the headshot.
Is this observation linked to the other two. I certainly think so.
And from these three observations I have made the interpretation that when the bullet strikes JFK's head, his skull is fragmented and is blown upwards, tearing the scalp at the top of his head and blowing it to the side.
This interpretation is strengthened by the autopsy Gif John posted and the detailed description of the large wound Jenkins sees during the autopsy.

Quote
Thank you for sharing your "observations".

Your welcome.
Hopefully, when you're feeling a little more confident, you can have a go at interpreting the evidence yourself.

Quote
Since when do I have to provide anything to disprove your "observations"? What isn't persuasive is the fact that all your "observations" are self-serving. The weakness of your arguments is that you can not provide anything authentic or conclusive. You can not even answer the question you asked yourself. If you (and your conclusions observations are correct, how do you explain the multitude of witnesses (who were actually there) that tell a different story? Are they all lying?

Oh dear, now you seem to be confusing "observations" with "interpretation".
Don't worry, nobody is expecting you to disprove an "observation".
Your point was that you thought my interpretation of the observations wasn't persuasive but you wouldn't say why it wasn't persuasive.
It seems your inferiority complex will allow you to make these snide suggestions but not to follow up by clarifying them.

"What isn't persuasive is the fact that all your "observations" are self-serving."

WTF does this mean? You really do say some silly things.

Quote
Your entire posturing yells out that you rule out the possibility that Jenkins was right and you are wrong. 

This statement has no basis in fact and is just a manifestation of your inferiority.
Jenkins' description of the large head wound, the large flap of scalp coming away from the side of the head, is shown in the Z-film. It explains why there is a large crater in the top of JFK's head - some parts of the skull were blown away [the "jets"]and some were attached to the inside of the scalp. The scalp can be seen hanging down by the side of JFK's head which is in accordance with Jenkins' observation of the large head wound.
Whereas Jenkins believes the large head wound is caused deliberately, the Z-film shows it is a result of the headshot.

Quote
There you go again. Jenkins didn't understand what he saw, but I [Dan o'meara] do. That's what you are saying. And of course you ignore all the corroboration provided by a large number of witnesses.

That's not what I am saying.
That is your interpretation based on your inferiority complex.
And I address what the large amount of corroborating witnesses saw in the part of the post you were responding too. You need to take a breath before you start responding.

Quote
Film evidence of the head wound happening is "hardly persuasive"??

What file evidence would that be? The Z film has been argued about since people first saw it. There is nothing conclusive or persuasive about it. You think you see one thing and can not imagine that somebody else might see something different.

There is nothing persuasive about the Z-film? Is that metallic headgear you're wearing? Have you been outed as Tinfoil yet?

Quote
Jenkin's detailed description of the head wound is "hardly persuasive"??

No, it's your out of context interpretation of his description that isn't persuasive

I repeat exactly what Jenkins describes.
I note that his description of the large head wound is also shown in the Z-film [crater, scalp flap]
There's nothing out of context.
You really are insecure.

Quote
The authenticity of what evidence is called into question?

The autopsy evidence you rely on, but you will never see that because your opinion is the only correct one, right?

The Z-film is faked. The autopsy pics are faked. But your tinfoil hat is real.
It's just a perverse coincidence that Jenkins describes in detail the exact wound shown by both the film and the pics.

Quote
Too bad you ran from answering my question about the authenticity of one of the autopsy photos showing an intact back of the head, when we know that part of the skull was left behind in Dealey Plaza.

I ran from your question?  :D
In fact, I've answered it on a number of occasions - the Z-film is unequivocal on this point, there was no blow-out at the back of the head. Therefore there is no reason for the scalp to be damaged in that area.
The interpretation of the missing bone representing a bullet exiting the back of the head is refuted by the Z-film.
The "jets" show the skull was blown upwards, not backwards.
As does the crater.
As does the large flap of scalp hanging down the side of his head.

Try your own interpretation of the evidence.
And remember - breathe.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 13, 2022, 10:53:47 PM
Well done, you seem to have grasped the difference between observations and conclusions  Thumb1:
The only silly thing was your snide comment - "Just repeating your conclusions doesn't make them correct."
And yes, the observations form my interpretation of events and when I've looked into as much evidence as I can I will make my conclusions.
I'm not sure if you would approach this differently because you seem to lack the confidence to make an interpretation of the evidence.

Oh boy... first of all, you have been presenting your conclusions all along, no matter how much spin you try to put on it. Don't even pretend that you haven't reached your conclusions already because the content of your posts show, beyond doubt, that you clearly have. Nowhere in your posts do you show any kind of reservation regarding your observations.

Quote
Oh dear, now you seem to be struggling with the concepts of "observation" and "knowledge".

More word games? Why all the distractions?

Quote
Making an observation isn't the same as having knowledge, superior or otherwise.

Indeed, so why do you pretend to have that knowledge over the knowledge of people who were actually there?

Quote
The Z-film shows a massive crater in JFK's head after the headshot - fact

I thought you said that your observations were not conclusions? Now you go one step further by calling your observation a "fact". Kinda says it all....

Quote
It also shows two distinct "jets" of what I assume are skull fragments and brain matter emanating from the top of JFK's head at enormous speed.
Are these two observations linked? I certainly think so.
I also observe a large flap of scalp hanging down by the side of his head after the headshot.
Is this observation linked to the other two. I certainly think so.
And from these three observations I have made the interpretation that when the bullet strikes JFK's head, his skull is fragmented and is blown upwards, tearing the scalp at the top of his head and blowing it to the side.
This interpretation is strengthened by the autopsy Gif John posted and the detailed description of the large wound Jenkins sees during the autopsy.

Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true or correct.

Quote
Your welcome.
Hopefully, when you're feeling a little more confident, you can have a go at interpreting the evidence yourself.

So, my sarcasm eluded you completely.  :D

Quote
Oh dear, now you seem to be confusing "observations" with "interpretation".
Don't worry, nobody is expecting you to disprove an "observation".
Your point was that you thought my interpretation of the observations wasn't persuasive but you wouldn't say why it wasn't persuasive.
It seems your inferiority complex will allow you to make these snide suggestions but not to follow up by clarifying them.

More silly word games, followed by a remark that could only be made by somebody with a superiority complex.

It seems any distraction to avoid answering the question I asked you will do..... 

Quote
"What isn't persuasive is the fact that all your "observations" are self-serving."

WTF does this mean? You really do say some silly things.

If you don't know what is means, why do you call it silly?

Quote
This statement has no basis in fact and is just a manifestation of your inferiority.

And there it is; the full, out in the open, expression of your belief that you are superior. Thanks for proving me right!  Thumb1:

Quote
Jenkins' description of the large head wound, the large flap of scalp coming away from the side of the head, is shown in the Z-film. It explains why there is a large crater in the top of JFK's head - some parts of the skull were blown away [the "jets"]and some were attached to the inside of the scalp. The scalp can be seen hanging down by the side of JFK's head which is in accordance with Jenkins' observation of the large head wound.
Whereas Jenkins believes the large head wound is caused deliberately, the Z-film shows it is a result of the headshot.

More repeating of the same observations, interpretations, conclusions (take your pick) and again still just as flawed as before.

Quote
That's not what I am saying.
That is your interpretation based on your inferiority complex.

Evasiveness. Of course it is what you are saying.

Quote
And I address what the large amount of corroborating witnesses saw in the part of the post you were responding too. You need to take a breath before you start responding.

Well, then why don't you simple post a link to that part of the post? You won't because it isn't there. All you do is ramble on about Jenkins.

Quote
There is nothing persuasive about the Z-film? Is that metallic headgear you're wearing? Have you been outed as Tinfoil yet?

Oh boy, now he's going full LN on me.... A typical example of how a LN deals with something he doesn't like but can't refute.
Your opinion that the Z film is persuasive is just that; your opinion. I fully understand how you, rather foolishly, considering yourself to be superior, can come to the fatally flawed conclusion that your opinion is the only right one, but that still doesn't mean that it is beyond your own little reality.

Quote
I repeat exactly what Jenkins describes.
I note that his description of the large head wound is also shown in the Z-film [crater, scalp flap]
There's nothing out of context.
You really are insecure.

Your constant personal attacks on me suggest that the real insecure one is you.

I note that his description of the large head wound is also shown in the Z-film [crater, scalp flap]
There's nothing out of context.


You cherry pick a part of what Jenkins said  and then compare it to your conclusions about what the Z film is showing. How in the world is that not out of context?

Quote
The Z-film is faked. The autopsy pics are faked. But your tinfoil hat is real.
It's just a perverse coincidence that Jenkins describes in detail the exact wound shown by both the film and the pics.

Outright LN paranoid dramatics. I didn't say the Z film is faked, nor did I claim that the autopsy pics are faked. I can not make such a determination, just like you can't determine them to be authentic. I only have expressed doubt, for an obvious reason, about one of those photos.

Having said that, you still haven't understood that if there was surgery to Kennedy's head (as Sibert and O'Neill said in their report and Jenkins also believes there was), then the body was tampered with prior to the autopsy, which makes everything that happened at the autopsy fruit of a poisonous tree.

Now, let's see if you are going so far as to claim, with any kind of certainty, that there couldn't have been surgery to the head, between Kennedy's body leaving Parkland and arriving at Bethesda.

Quote
I ran from your question?  :D
In fact, I've answered it on a number of occasions - the Z-film is unequivocal on this point, there was no blow-out at the back of the head. Therefore there is no reason for the scalp to be damaged in that area.
The interpretation of the missing bone representing a bullet exiting the back of the head is refuted by the Z-film.
The "jets" show the skull was blown upwards, not backwards.
As does the crater.
As does the large flap of scalp hanging down the side of his head.

Your reliance on the Z film is nothing more than a mere reliance on what you think you see in the film, when in fact the best you can do is assume that what you think you see in the film is actually correct.

Therefore there is no reason for the scalp to be damaged in that area.

You forgot to add "in my opinion".

Regardless of your opinion, it is an absolute fact that FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill wrote in their report that they heard the autopsy doctors at Bethesda discuss apparent surgery to the top of the head after unwrapping the head. They were there, you were not, so I'll go with the actual evidence instead of your opinion.

The interpretation of the missing bone representing a bullet exiting the back of the head is refuted by the Z-film.

Really? So, how come they found a piece of skull from the back of the head on the street in Dealey Plaza? You claim to see in the Z film that the back of the head after the shot is still intact, right? So, how did that piece of skull get there?

Quote
Try your own interpretation of the evidence.
And remember - breathe.

When I need your advice, I will ask for it. But I wouldn't hold my breathe if I were you.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 14, 2022, 02:13:51 AM
Oh boy... first of all, you have been presenting your conclusions all along, no matter how much spin you try to put on it. Don't even pretend that you haven't reached your conclusions already because the content of your posts show, beyond doubt, that you clearly have. Nowhere in your posts do you show any kind of reservation regarding your observations.

More word games? Why all the distractions?

Indeed, so why do you pretend to have that knowledge over the knowledge of people who were actually there?

I thought you said that your observations were not conclusions? Now you go one step further by calling your observation a "fact". Kinda says it all....

Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true or correct.

So, my sarcasm eluded you completely.  :D

More silly word games, followed by a remark that could only be made by somebody with a superiority complex.

It seems any distraction to avoid answering the question I asked you will do..... 

If you don't know what is means, why do you call it silly?

And there it is; the full, out in the open, expression of your belief that you are superior. Thanks for proving me right!  Thumb1:

More repeating of the same observations, interpretations, conclusions (take your pick) and again still just as flawed as before.

Evasiveness. Of course it is what you are saying.

Well, then why don't you simple post a link to that part of the post? You won't because it isn't there. All you do is ramble on about Jenkins.

Oh boy, now he's going full LN on me.... A typical example of how a LN deals with something he doesn't like but can't refute.
Your opinion that the Z film is persuasive is just that; your opinion. I fully understand how you, rather foolishly, considering yourself to be superior, can come to the fatally flawed conclusion that your opinion is the only right one, but that still doesn't mean that it is beyond your own little reality.

Your constant personal attacks on me suggest that the real insecure one is you.

I note that his description of the large head wound is also shown in the Z-film [crater, scalp flap]
There's nothing out of context.


You cherry pick a part of what Jenkins said  and then compare it to your conclusions about what the Z film is showing. How in the world is that not out of context?

Outright LN paranoid dramatics. I didn't say the Z film is faked, nor did I claim that the autopsy pics are faked. I can not make such a determination, just like you can't determine them to be authentic. I only have expressed doubt, for an obvious reason, about one of those photos.

Having said that, you still haven't understood that if there was surgery to Kennedy's head (as Sibert and O'Neill said in their report and Jenkins also believes there was), then the body was tampered with prior to the autopsy, which makes everything that happened at the autopsy fruit of a poisonous tree.

Now, let's see if you are going so far as to claim, with any kind of certainty, that there couldn't have been surgery to the head, between Kennedy's body leaving Parkland and arriving at Bethesda.

Your reliance on the Z film is nothing more than a mere reliance on what you think you see in the film, when in fact the best you can do is assume that what you think you see in the film is actually correct.

Therefore there is no reason for the scalp to be damaged in that area.

You forgot to add "in my opinion".

Regardless of your opinion, it is an absolute fact that FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill wrote in their report that they heard the autopsy doctors at Bethesda discuss apparent surgery to the top of the head after unwrapping the head. They were there, you were not, so I'll go with the actual evidence instead of your opinion.

The interpretation of the missing bone representing a bullet exiting the back of the head is refuted by the Z-film.

Really? So, how come they found a piece of skull from the back of the head on the street in Dealey Plaza? You claim to see in the Z film that the back of the head after the shot is still intact, right? So, how did that piece of skull get there?

When I need your advice, I will ask for it. But I wouldn't hold my breathe if I were you.

The usual tirade of insecure waffle devoid of any content.

In 1996 Roland Zavada, the world's leading expert on 8mm Kodachrome II film authenticated the Z-film. Even a tinfoil merchant like yourself is going to struggle wishing that away:


The examination

"Zavada identified two primary objectives for his investigation. First, he looked at the original in-camera Zapruder film to verify its authenticity and determine whether some of the anomalies on the film matched the characteristics of the original film and camera, or whether they were, as some theorized, evidence that the film had been altered or edited.

Although the Zapruder film is the most studied film in history, most people had just seen second- and third-generation copies. Zavada was one of a handful of people to see the original since it came out of Zapruder's camera.

"I saw it four times, hands on," Zavada said. "You can tell a lot by feeling the film, in terms of how it's been stored or kept, whether it's fluted, whether or not you have edges that have been damaged. You can just feel the perforation."

By studying the physical characteristics of the film and analyzing the symbols encoded on it, Zavada was able to conclude where the film stock came from.

"One of the things I certified was that Zapruder's film was made in 1961," Zavada said. Zavada analyzed the edge print on the film — machine codes that were added to Kodachrome II during the slitting, spooling and perforating process. "I could tell it was finished in Rochester based upon the codes."

Zavada tracked down the technicians who had developed Zapruder's film in Dallas hours after the assassination and made copies for the Secret Service. He looked at Zapruder's camera, and talked to experts at Bell & Howell to understand its characteristics. He concluded that all of the artifacts on the film had been caused by the camera itself. Some of those anomalies weren't visible on the copies.

He also examined the images that were captured outside of the frame of the film, between the areas punched for sprockets. These images weren't present on the copies, giving further credence to the authenticity of the original.

Zapruder paused filming at one point. He'd started shooting when a police motorcycle turned down Elm Street and stopped when he realized it wasn't Kennedy. He resumed filming some time later, when the president's car first became visible. Some conspiracy theorists suggested the film had actually been spliced.

But Zavada found no evidence of splicing, and instead saw the tell-tale fogging that occurs when a movie camera paused with film in its gate.

Originally intending to spend four days working on his analysis, Zavada spent more than 100, delivering an exhaustive, 150-page report, supplemented with hundreds more pages of notes, appendices and technical documents.

Zavada's report concluded that Zapruder's film was an "in camera original" and that any alleged alterations were not feasible. Any attempt at forgery would have left visible artifacts of "image structure constraints of grain; [and] contrast and modulation transfer function losses. It has no evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, [or] contrast buildup."

Zavada concluded that the Zapruder film that the ARRB had was the original and that it had not been tampered with.

"I knew the variability that was in 8mm film," Zavada said. "Film is not precise. It has variables because it is a plastic medium. You don't cut, you shear. You're either punching holes or you're slitting. I knew the difficulty of positioning. I headed the committees on 16 and 8mm technology for the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers.""

"If somebody had altered the film," Zavada said from his Pittsford home last week, "they had to do it in a way that I couldn't see."
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/local/2013/11/21/kodak-researchers-helped-analyze-jfk-assassination-evidence/3667753/

---------------------------------------

"Zavada has been vehement from the beginning that his study of the film and its authenticity is independent of any content analysis. His examination and investigation is simply of the artifacts presented to him (the camera-original film and its three first generation copies) and their provenance. This was the limit of his investigation and his conclusions. Given these limits he is willing to conclude as follows:

There is no detectable evidence of manipulation or image alteration on the Zapruder in-camera-original and all supporting evidence precludes any forgery thereto.

The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all the characteristics of an original film per my report... It has NO evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, contrast buildup, etc.

In the world of paintings or antiques, authentication of artifacts is a job best left to experts. The same applies here. In the specialized realm of "questioned document" or "questioned photograph" examination, amateurs venture at their peril. Long before Lifton and Livingstone ventured forth, David Mantik offered his own mistaken theory concerning the Zapruder film as artifact. In an early article in Fetzer's volume, Assassination Science, he opined that the "ghost images" found at times between the sprocket holes signaled alteration of the original film. This thesis evaporated as soon as Anthony Marsh began circularizing snippets of eight millimeter film taken with a similar camera that showed similar ghost images. Later, Zavada showed how the "ghost images" were produced by a simple double-exposure of the primary image. Other amateurish efforts over the years that sought to undermine the authenticity of the film via technical criticism have met with similar fates."
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html
[Originally posted by John Mytton]

The Z-film is authentic.
It shows a massive crater in the top of JFK's head. An area where scalp and skull are missing.
It shows defined "jets" of skull and brain matter shooting upwards from the top of his head.
It shows a large flap of scalp blown over to the right side of his head.
This massive injury to the top of the head is confirmed by the autopsy photos posted on this thread.
It is also confirmed by Jenkins' detailed description of wound.

It doesn't show a blowout at the back of the head.
Something also confirmed by an autopsy pic posted on this thread.

You are welcome to your tinfoil nonsense but Zavada's authentification of the Z-film and the three, independently corroborating pieces of evidence - Z-film, autopsy pics and Jenkins' description of the wound - will do for me.
The overwhelming evidence indicates there was no blowout at the back of the skull.
Why were some witnesses convinced there was an injury only to the back of JFK's head?
As I've already explained, the most likely reason is raised in the Jenkins interview:

In his interview. Jenkins makes an interesting point:

"When Dr. Humes took the wrappings off the head, there was a secondary wrapping on it that I think was a towel...as he was taking it off this area kind of gapped open [he indicates that the whole top right side of the skull from the saggital suture downwards opened up] but as soon as we separated it from the towel it went back together."

This large flap could be put back in place.

Anyone who saw JFK's head while it was in this condition would have no reason to suspect the full extent of the damage to his head.
It may have appeared the only injury was towards the back of his head, it's something like that or the Z-film was faked. I think I can guess which option you and your tinfoil friends will choose.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2022, 03:42:28 AM

The usual tirade of insecure waffle devoid of any content.


Classic LN behavior. Simply ignoring and dismissing what you don't like. How pathetic! You are coming across more and more as a Richard Smith klone.

Quote

In 1996 Roland Zavada, the world's leading expert on 8mm Kodachrome II film authenticated the Z-film. Even a tinfoil merchant like yourself is going to struggle wishing that away:


Which only displays your enormous level of insecurity, as you are desperately trying to appeal to authority to authenticate a film which I never claimed was faked in the first place. It's hilarious beyond belief.

Who, pray tell, appointed Zavada as the "world's leading expert on 8mm Kodachrome II"? The man worked for Eastman Kodak,  was hired by "NARA" after his retirement and an on line search quickly reveals that he did most of his "expert" work for the 6th floor museum (go figure)! But leave it to a LN to overemphasize the significance of the man, who had actually already shown his true colors by proclaiming his belief of the official narrative. He clearly wasn't an independent expert.

There is no reason for me to "struggle wishing that away", because whether or not the Z film is authentic is in no way relevant for our discussion as we were talking about what you believe you see in the film.

Quote

The Z-film is authentic.
It shows a massive crater in the top of JFK's head. An area where scalp and skull are missing.
It shows defined "jets" of skull and brain matter shooting upwards from the top of his head.
It shows a large flap of scalp blown over to the right side of his head.
This massive injury to the top of the head is confirmed by the autopsy photos posted on this thread.
It is also confirmed by Jenkins' detailed description of wound.

It doesn't show a blowout at the back of the head.
Something also confirmed by an autopsy pic posted on this thread.


It shows a massive crater in the top of JFK's head. An area where scalp and skull are missing.

It only shows that in your opinion. I don't believe it shows any of that.

It shows defined "jets" of skull and brain matter shooting upwards from the top of his head.
It shows a large flap of scalp blown over to the right side of his head.


So, how do you explain the motorcycle police officers behind the limo being covered with brain tissue and the skull part that was blown out to the back? Jackie Kennedy actually climbed out of the car to retrieve a piece of skull.

It doesn't show a blowout at the back of the head."

True, at least not that you can see, but it does show IMO the back of the head expanding like a balloon, which matches the description that parts of the skull at the back of the head were heavily fractured and only being held in place by the skin.

Quote
You are welcome to your tinfoil nonsense but Zavada's authentification of the Z-film and the three, independently corroborating pieces of evidence - Z-film, autopsy pics and Jenkins' description of the wound - will do for me.
The overwhelming evidence indicates there was no blowout at the back of the skull.

None of this changes the fact that you have reached your conclusion based on what you believe you see in the Z film combined with autopsy photos you can't authenticate and a cherry picked out of context description of the wound by Jenkins. That this will do for you is no surprise. It will do for any shallow superficial LN, so why should you be any different.

Quote
Why were some witnesses convinced there was an injury only to the back of JFK's head?
As I've already explained, the most likely reason is raised in the Jenkins interview:

In his interview. Jenkins makes an interesting point:

"When Dr. Humes took the wrappings off the head, there was a secondary wrapping on it that I think was a towel...as he was taking it off this area kind of gapped open [he indicates that the whole top right side of the skull from the saggital suture downwards opened up] but as soon as we separated it from the towel it went back together."

This large flap could be put back in place.

Anyone who saw JFK's head while it was in this condition would have no reason to suspect the full extent of the damage to his head.
It may have appeared the only injury was towards the back of his head, it's something like that or the Z-film was faked. I think I can guess which option you and your tinfoil friends will choose.

Anyone who saw JFK's head while it was in this condition would have no reason to suspect the full extent of the damage to his head. It may have appeared the only injury was towards the back of his head

BS. This is pure speculation and contradicted by what O'Connor and Custer said. Are you seriously suggesting that the ER doctors at Parkland were so incompetent that they missed the biggest wound on the President's head?

In fact, Jerrol Custer told the ARRB that most of the occipital bone was gone and that the hole was so big that he could fit his two hands, folded together, in the cavity. Custer, just in case you don't know, was the man who took the X-rays and to do so he had to move the head around, which he found near impossible to do because the wounded part of the head was highly unstable.

You still have not answered my question about Sibert and O'Neill saying in their report that there was discussion in the autopsy room about surgery to Kennedy's head prior to the arrival of his body at Bethesda. You have also ignored my question about the skul fragment that was found in Dealey Plaza. Since you foolishly seem to believe that you have all the answers, why can't you answer these two questions?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 14, 2022, 04:08:28 AM

In fact, Jerrol Custer told the ARRB that most of the occipital bone was gone and that the hole was so big that he could fit his two hands, folded together, in the cavity. Custer, just in case you don't know, was the man who took the X-rays and to do so he had to move the head around, which he found near impossible to do because the wounded part of the head was highly unstable.

The X-Rays that Custer took of the head show the occipital bone to be intact. That is, that there was no large hole in that region.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2022, 04:19:25 AM
The X-Rays that Custer took of the head show the occipital bone to be intact. That is, that there was no large hole in that region.

Then why did he tell the ARRB that most of the occipital bone was gone? Was he lying, after so many years and for what?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 14, 2022, 04:25:43 AM
Then why did he tell the ARRB that most of the occipital bone was gone? Was he lying, after so many years and for what?

He wasn't lying. he just had a faulty recollection. He positively identified the X-Rays as being ones that he had taken.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2022, 04:34:33 AM
He wasn't lying. he just had a faulty recollection. He positively identified the X-Rays as being ones that he had taken.

Aha... another faulty recollection. So he misremembered the size and nature of the wound but remembered correctly which X-Rays he took?

Did he misremember that he actually could fit his hands folded together in the wound cavity, which he also told David Lifton in the early 80's?

He did indeed identify some X-rays as those he had taken, but expressed concern about at least three of them.

Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 14, 2022, 04:56:45 AM
Aha... another faulty recollection. So he misremember the size and nature of the wound by remembered correctly which X-Rays he took?

Did he misremember that he actually could fit his hands folded together in the wound cavity, which he also told David Lifton in the early 80's?

He did indeed some X-rays as those he had taken, but expressed concern about at least three of them.

Yes , faulty recollection. The autopsy photos and X-Rays do not lie. Custer confirmed that he had taken the three X-Rays of the head.

GUNN: Mr. Custer, we’re going to show you now X-ray No. 1, which has been identified in the 1966 inspection as the “anterior/posterior view of the skull, slightly heat damaged”. My question to you, Mr. Custer. is whether you can identify that as an autopsy X-ray that you took -
CUSTER: Yes, this is definitely an autopsy film.
GUNN: If you could let me finish the question.
CUSTER: I’m sorry.
GUNN: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
CUSTER: Yes, sir. Correct.

GUNN: Can look at No. 2 now, please. which is identified in the 1966 Inventory as a right lateral view of the skull with two angle lines overdrawn on the film?
[Interruption to the proceedings.]
CUSTER: Do vou want to repeat the question?
GUNN:The question is: Mr. Custer, can you identify the film that is in front of you now as having been taken by you on the night of the autopsy of President Kennedy?
CUSTER: Correct. Yes, sir, I do.

GUNN: Could we now examine No. 3, which is identified as the lateral view of the skull?
CUSTER: Okay. This is the skull that I took - that I had taken. Same marker on the left side.


Listen from (1:58:05 to 2:00:35), (2:11:00 to 2:12:25), and (2:19:40 to 2:20:35)
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2022, 05:21:39 AM
Yes , faulty recollection. The autopsy photos and X-Rays do not lie. Custer confirmed that he had taken the three X-Rays of the head.

GUNN: Mr. Custer, we’re going to show you now X-ray No. 1, which has been identified in the 1966 inspection as the “anterior/posterior view of the skull, slightly heat damaged”. My question to you, Mr. Custer. is whether you can identify that as an autopsy X-ray that you took -
CUSTER: Yes, this is definitely an autopsy film.
GUNN: If you could let me finish the question.
CUSTER: I’m sorry.
GUNN: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
CUSTER: Yes, sir. Correct.

GUNN: Can look at No. 2 now, please. which is identified in the 1966 Inventory as a right lateral view of the skull with two angle lines overdrawn on the film?
[Interruption to the proceedings.]
CUSTER: Do vou want to repeat the question?
GUNN:The question is: Mr. Custer, can you identify the film that is in front of you now as having been taken by you on the night of the autopsy of President Kennedy?
CUSTER: Correct. Yes, sir, I do.

GUNN: Could we now examine No. 3, which is identified as the lateral view of the skull?
CUSTER: Okay. This is the skull that I took - that I had taken. Same marker on the left side.


Listen from (1:58:05 to 2:00:35), (2:11:00 to 2:12:25), and (2:19:40 to 2:20:35)

Yes , faulty recollection. The autopsy photos and X-Rays do not lie.

Don't they?

There are so many people saying things that do not match the official story and individually they might be dismissed on superficial grounds, but they are never addressed in combination.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 14, 2022, 05:27:09 AM
Yes , faulty recollection. The autopsy photos and X-Rays do not lie.

Don't they?

Not when they've been authenticated six ways from Sunday.

Quote
There are so many people saying things that do not match the official story and individually they might be dismissed on superficial grounds, but they are never addressed in combination.

Yeah, so many people who say things that don't match with what others say or with things that they themselves said years ago.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2022, 05:34:43 AM
Not when they've been authenticated six ways from Sunday.

Yeah, so many people who say things that don't match with what others say or with things that they themselves said years ago.

Not when they've been authenticated six ways from Sunday.

Who authenticated them?

Yeah, so many people who say things that don't match with what others say or with things that they themselves said years ago.

Amazing, isn't it. A simple case of a guy shooting from a building killing another guy in a car produces so many contradictions and questionable evidence.


Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 14, 2022, 05:42:37 AM
Not when they've been authenticated six ways from Sunday.

Who authenticated them?

John Ebersole, the Radiologist, and Jerrol Custer authenticated the X-Rays, As did Humes, Boswell, and the HSCA's 21 member panel of photographic analysis experts. The HSCA medical panel confirmed that the X-Rays were of Kennedy. John Stringer, the photographer, authenticated the photos. As did Humes, Boswell, and the HSCA's 21 member panel of photographic analysis experts.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2022, 01:49:30 PM
John Ebersole, the Radiologist, and Jerrol Custer authenticated the X-Rays, As did Humes, Boswell, and the HSCA's 21 member panel of photographic analysis experts. The HSCA medical panel confirmed that the X-Rays were of Kennedy. John Stringer, the photographer, authenticated the photos. As did Humes, Boswell, and the HSCA's 21 member panel of photographic analysis experts.

The only two people in your list who could possibly authenticate the X-Rays are Ebersole and Custer. I haven't checked Ebersole yet, but Custer did indeed authenticate some of the X-Rays but also expressed concern about some of them.
Humes and Boswell were not involved in the taking of the X-Rays and have to rely on authentication by the two men named.
John Stringer also was not involved in the taking of the X-Rays. In fact, when asked about him by the ARRB, Custer could not even remember him vividly.
The HSCA photograpic experts never saw Kennedy's body and had no way of knowing or verifying they were the X-Rays of Kennedy.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 14, 2022, 10:20:35 PM
The only two people in your list who could possibly authenticate the X-Rays are Ebersole and Custer. I haven't checked Ebersole yet, but Custer did indeed authenticate some of the X-Rays but also expressed concern about some of them.
Humes and Boswell were not involved in the taking of the X-Rays and have to rely on authentication by the two men named.
John Stringer also was not involved in the taking of the X-Rays. In fact, when asked about him by the ARRB, Custer could not even remember him vividly.
The HSCA photograpic experts never saw Kennedy's body and had no way of knowing or verifying they were the X-Rays of Kennedy.

I never said that the HSCA photographic experts verified that the X-Rays were of Kennedy. I said that it was the HSCA Medical panel that verified that the X-Rays were of Kennedy. They were able to do so with the aid of X-rays taken of Kennedy prior to the assassination and his dental records.

I never claimed that Stringer authenticated the X-Rays.

Humes' and Boswell's authentication was based on their own recollections of the autopsy that they performed as well as what in contained in their autopsy report. If you remove them from the list then you still have the 21 members of the HSCA's photographic analysis panel. That panel confirmed the authenticity of the X-Rays and the photos.

Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2022, 10:50:59 PM
I never said that the HSCA photographic experts verified that the X-Rays were of Kennedy. I said that it was the HSCA Medical panel that verified that the X-Rays were of Kennedy. They were able to do so with the aid of X-rays taken of Kennedy prior to the assassination and his dental records.

I never claimed that Stringer authenticated the X-Rays.

I stand corrected. I misread your post. My bad.

Quote
Humes' and Boswell's authentication was based on their own recollections of the autopsy that they performed as well as what in contained in their autopsy report. If you remove them from the list then you still have the 21 members of the HSCA's photographic analysis panel. That panel confirmed the authenticity of the X-Rays and the photos.

Now you've got me utterly confused.

Here you say;

you still have the 21 members of the HSCA's photographic analysis panel. That panel confirmed the authenticity of the X-Rays and the photos.

but earlier you said;

I never said that the HSCA photographic experts verified that the X-Rays were of Kennedy.

Could you please explain how you can confirm the authenticity of the X-Rays without verifying that the X-Rays were of Kennedy?

Earlier in this thread you said the X-Rays had "been authenticated six ways from Sunday."

It now turns out that you apparently were merely talking about Ebersole and Custer and the recollections of Humes and Boswell. So, you've two men, who actually conducted the most questionable autopsy in history, and who are never going to say anything but what you would expect from them and two men that actually took the X-Rays and even one of those (and I still haven't checked Ebersol) had some doubts about some of the X-Rays.

Oh well, at least now we know what you mean by "six ways from Sunday" 
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 15, 2022, 12:15:24 AM

Which only displays your enormous level of insecurity, as you are desperately trying to appeal to authority to authenticate a film which I never claimed was faked in the first place. It's hilarious beyond belief.

Who, pray tell, appointed Zavada as the "world's leading expert on 8mm Kodachrome II"? The man worked for Eastman Kodak,  was hired by "NARA" after his retirement and an on line search quickly reveals that he did most of his "expert" work for the 6th floor museum (go figure)! But leave it to a LN to overemphasize the significance of the man, who had actually already shown his true colors by proclaiming his belief of the official narrative. He clearly wasn't an independent expert.

There is no reason for me to "struggle wishing that away", because whether or not the Z film is authentic is in no way relevant for our discussion as we were talking about what you believe you see in the film.

"...desperately trying to appeal to authority..."

Always with your "appeals" to this and that.
When you say that I'm trying to appeal to authority, would that be the world's leading authority on Kodachrome II? Whose authority should  I be appealing to, you and your tinfoil buddies?
The world's leading expert undertakes a comprehensive examination of the Kodachrome II film Zapruder used and releases a 150 page report in which he finds it to be genuine but that's not good enough for you.
And the way you present accepting the word of someone with world class expertise in Kodachrome II as a negative thing.
What a joke.

"...a film which I never claimed was faked in the first place..."

You don't have the balls to just come out and say you think it's fake just like you don't have the balls to interpret the evidence. Instead you hide behind snide comments like this - "The Z film has been argued about since people first saw it. There is nothing conclusive or persuasive about it."
You think you can write off one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case just because some of your tinfoil brethren have questioned it.
It has been proven to be genuine by the world's leading expert on Kodachrome II. Get over it.

"Who, pray tell, appointed Zavada as the "world's leading expert on 8mm Kodachrome II"?

Here's a couple of excerpts from his biography. I've highlighted a couple of relevant parts:

"Mr. Zavada retired, as a Standards Director for Imaging Technologies, from Eastman Kodak in March 1990. His past responsibilities included coordinating the activities of the Consumer Video and Broadcast Telecine Television Evaluation Laboratories, a product engineer on reversal motion picture films, and as a principal member of the teams that introduced Kodachrome II, Ektachrome Commercial and Kodachrome int Film and that developed the Super 8 system.
He began his standards activity with the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) in 1962. In 1966, he assumed responsibility for the National and International Standardization of the Super 8 system, becoming chair of the SMPTE's 16mm and 8mm Technology Committee, chair of the Super 8 Technology Committee of the ISO TC-36, and subsequently became chairman of several national and international committees including leader of the United States delegation to ISO-TC36 - Cinematography. Work with the Society culminated with four terms as the Society's Engineering Vice President, 1976-1983."

I've no doubt that's still not good enough for you because someone else said the film was made by pixies.

Quote
It shows a massive crater in the top of JFK's head. An area where scalp and skull are missing.

It only shows that in your opinion. I don't believe it shows any of that.

Really?
It's just my opinion, is it?
You don't see the difference in JFK's head between this:

(https://i.postimg.cc/LXb8kHsN/z292-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

And this:

(https://i.postimg.cc/xdjmt102/z330-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Would it help if I used an arrow to point out the massive crater in his head:

(https://i.postimg.cc/wjc86wWX/z328-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Does that help?
Can you see it now?

Of course you can't  ;D

Quote
It shows defined "jets" of skull and brain matter shooting upwards from the top of his head.
It shows a large flap of scalp blown over to the right side of his head.


So, how do you explain the motorcycle police officers behind the limo being covered with brain tissue and the skull part that was blown out to the back? Jackie Kennedy actually climbed out of the car to retrieve a piece of skull.

What do you mean?
The top of his head was blown off, what don't you understand about that?

Quote
It doesn't show a blowout at the back of the head."

True, at least not that you can see, but it does show IMO the back of the head expanding like a balloon, which matches the description that parts of the skull at the back of the head were heavily fractured and only being held in place by the skin.

"...at least not that you can see,"

 :D :D :D Wiedmann's "Invisible Blowout" theory.
Brilliant.
I'm not surprised you don't interpret the evidence

Quote
None of this changes the fact that you have reached your conclusion based on what you believe you see in the Z film combined with autopsy photos you can't authenticate and a cherry picked out of context description of the wound by Jenkins. That this will do for you is no surprise. It will do for any shallow superficial LN, so why should you be any different.

"...autopsy photos you can't authenticate..."

You're expecting me to authenticate the autopsy pics??
What meds are you on?
Luckily both Custer and Ebersole authenticated them. They seemed better placed to do it than me, particularly Ebersole. But I've no doubt that's not good enough for you.

"...cherry picked out of context description of the wound by Jenkins."


Cherry picked?
You mean I've picked the bit about the head wound I was discussing?
Do you mean I picked the relevant part of the interview?
Do you understand what "cherry picked" means because you certainly don't understand what "out of context" means.
Or "observations" or "conclusions" or "knowledge" or "interpretation".

Quote
Anyone who saw JFK's head while it was in this condition would have no reason to suspect the full extent of the damage to his head. It may have appeared the only injury was towards the back of his head

BS. This is pure speculation and contradicted by what O'Connor and Custer said. Are you seriously suggesting that the ER doctors at Parkland were so incompetent that they missed the biggest wound on the President's head?

Or "speculation".
When I wrote "it's something like that" I was clearly indicating it was speculation.
If the scalp was back in place, as Jenkins describes, anyone not specifically examining the head wound would not be able to gauge the full extent of the damage. That's obvious.

Quote
In fact, Jerrol Custer told the ARRB that most of the occipital bone was gone and that the hole was so big that he could fit his two hands, folded together, in the cavity. Custer, just in case you don't know, was the man who took the X-rays and to do so he had to move the head around, which he found near impossible to do because the wounded part of the head was highly unstable.

Is this the same Custer you quoted earlier as someone who only saw the blowout hole at the back of the head?

"Well, let's see. Jenkins clearly shows us in the video, by using a skull, where the actual blast out wound was. That description is the same as that of O'Connor, Robinson, Custer, Van Hoessen and most of the Parkland ER staff that saw the head wound."

Quote
You still have not answered my question about Sibert and O'Neill saying in their report that there was discussion in the autopsy room about surgery to Kennedy's head prior to the arrival of his body at Bethesda. You have also ignored my question about the skul fragment that was found in Dealey Plaza. Since you foolishly seem to believe that you have all the answers, why can't you answer these two questions?

They heard talk about surgery to the head. So?
A piece of skull was found in Dealey Plaza. So?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 15, 2022, 01:36:56 AM
"...desperately trying to appeal to authority..."

Always with your "appeals" to this and that.
When you say that I'm trying to appeal to authority, would that be the world's leading authority on Kodachrome II? Whose authority should  I be appealing to, you and your tinfoil buddies?
The world's leading expert undertakes a comprehensive examination of the Kodachrome II film Zapruder used and releases a 150 page report in which he finds it to be genuine but that's not good enough for you.
And the way you present accepting the word of someone with world class expertise in Kodachrome II as a negative thing.
What a joke.

Hilarious! Logical fallacies exist whether you understand or like them or not. When you introduce somebody as "the word's leading expert", all you are trying to do is impress, when in fact nobody ever called Zavada the world's leading expert (I don't think even Zavada would have called himself that). The biggest joke is that you tried to present a man who clearly is knowledgeable as "the world's leading expert" in order to make an impression and it blew up in your face. And btw the size of a report says absolutely nothing about the validity of it's content. I know civil servants who write massive reports on a monthly and it's all BS to justify their paycheck. Just take doorstoppers like the Warren Report and Bugliosi's book. When I was growing up I would never have believed that fairytales could be as long and dreary!

Quote

"...a film which I never claimed was faked in the first place..."

You don't have the balls to just come out and say you think it's fake just like you don't have the balls to interpret the evidence. Instead you hide behind snide comments like this - "The Z film has been argued about since people first saw it. There is nothing conclusive or persuasive about it."
You think you can write off one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case just because some of your tinfoil brethren have questioned it.
It has been proven to be genuine by the world's leading expert on Kodachrome II. Get over it.


Another pathetic ad hominem attack? Really? Why am I not surprised? If I thought it was fake it would say so and I don't give a damn what you think you know about me. My comment is an absolute statement of fact. The Z film has been argued about since people first saw it. You just don't like it. Oh poor boy...

It has been proven to be genuine by the world's leading expert on Kodachrome II. Get over it.

If you say so....  No wait, that's just an opinion of a biased individual.

Quote
"Who, pray tell, appointed Zavada as the "world's leading expert on 8mm Kodachrome II"?

Here's a couple of excerpts from his biography. I've highlighted a couple of relevant parts:

"Mr. Zavada retired, as a Standards Director for Imaging Technologies, from Eastman Kodak in March 1990. His past responsibilities included coordinating the activities of the Consumer Video and Broadcast Telecine Television Evaluation Laboratories, a product engineer on reversal motion picture films, and as a principal member of the teams that introduced Kodachrome II, Ektachrome Commercial and Kodachrome int Film and that developed the Super 8 system.
He began his standards activity with the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) in 1962. In 1966, he assumed responsibility for the National and International Standardization of the Super 8 system, becoming chair of the SMPTE's 16mm and 8mm Technology Committee, chair of the Super 8 Technology Committee of the ISO TC-36, and subsequently became chairman of several national and international committees including leader of the United States delegation to ISO-TC36 - Cinematography. Work with the Society culminated with four terms as the Society's Engineering Vice President, 1976-1983."

I've no doubt that's still not good enough for you because someone else said the film was made by pixies.


Excerpts from his biography fall in the category of "never say anything bad about a dead person". And btw who wrote the biography?

You still haven't told me who appointed Zavada as the "world's leading expert on 8mm Kodachrome II". Why is that?

Quote
Really?
It's just my opinion, is it?
You don't see the difference in JFK's head between this:

(https://i.postimg.cc/LXb8kHsN/z292-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

And this:

(https://i.postimg.cc/xdjmt102/z330-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Would it help if I used an arrow to point out the massive crater in his head:

(https://i.postimg.cc/wjc86wWX/z328-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Does that help?
Can you see it now?

Of course you can't  ;D


Yes it's still your opinion. All I see is a blurry image. This is just as bad as the people who claim that a blurry picture shows an assassin behind the fence of the grassy knoll. I don't see that either.

Quote
What do you mean?
The top of his head was blown off, what don't you understand about that?

Don't you understand the question? The motorcycle cops behind the limo were covered in brain tissue, Jackie tried to recover a part of Kennedy's head from the trunk of the limo and a part of JFK's skull was found in Dealey Plaza. You made a big thing about a burst of blood and brain tissue blown forward, so how did the brain tissue and parts of the skull end up behind the car?

Quote
"...at least not that you can see,"

 :D :D :D Wiedmann's "Invisible Blowout" theory.
Brilliant.
I'm not surprised you don't interpret the evidence

Only an idiot would say that what you can not see did not happen. Are you such an idiot?

Fact: A part of JFK's skull was found at Dealey Plaza, which could only have happened if it blew out to the back of the limo. Fact: Jackie tried to recover a piece of the skull from the trunk of the car, which means it was blown backwards, which is in no way compatible to a shot from the back.

How can a shot from the back result in a part of the skull being blown in the opposite direction? Ever asked yourself that question, Einstein?

Quote
"...autopsy photos you can't authenticate..."

You're expecting me to authenticate the autopsy pics??
What meds are you on?
Luckily both Custer and Ebersole authenticated them. They seemed better placed to do it than me, particularly Ebersole. But I've no doubt that's not good enough for you.

Neither Ebersole or Custer actually authenticated the autopsy pictures. They authenticated the X-Rays, but Custer expressed doubt about some of them. Learn the evidence before you try to be clever!

Quote

"...cherry picked out of context description of the wound by Jenkins."


Cherry picked?
You mean I've picked the bit about the head wound I was discussing?
Do you mean I picked the relevant part of the interview?
Do you understand what "cherry picked" means because you certainly don't understand what "out of context" means.
Or "observations" or "conclusions" or "knowledge" or "interpretation".

Yes, cherry picked. You did not pick the relevant part of the interview. You picked the part you liked! And you just keep on believing that I don't understand anything.... I like it when people, because of their own ego, underestimate me.

Quote
Or "speculation".
When I wrote "it's something like that" I was clearly indicating it was speculation.
If the scalp was back in place, as Jenkins describes, anyone not specifically examining the head wound would not be able to gauge the full extent of the damage. That's obvious.

When you admit that it is speculation, then there is no need for me to address it any further.

And btw, does this look like a scalp that was back in place?

(https://i.postimg.cc/L4WmFjMP/JFK-Autopsy-Morph.gif)

Quote
Is this the same Custer you quoted earlier as someone who only saw the blowout hole at the back of the head?

"Well, let's see. Jenkins clearly shows us in the video, by using a skull, where the actual blast out wound was. That description is the same as that of O'Connor, Robinson, Custer, Van Hoessen and most of the Parkland ER staff that saw the head wound."

Yes, but I didn't say he "only saw the blowout hole at the back of the head". You just made that up.

Quote
They heard talk about surgery to the head. So?
A piece of skull was found in Dealey Plaza. So?

When you need to ask these questions, you clearly haven't got a clue about what the consequences of either remark are for your fairytale belief.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 15, 2022, 11:41:06 PM
A plume of smoke was seen coming from beyond the picket fence. So?
The 3 ladies who came down the stairs right after the last shots did not see or hear Oswald. So?
Oswald did not have time to get from the boarding house room to kill Tippit and meet the timeline that has been established. So?
Military personnel at Bethesda observed two different coffins brought in at different times. So?

The debate is about the nature of the head wound shown in the Z-film. I was asking what these questions have to do with that.
WTF does a puff of smoke have to do with that?
WTF does 3 ladies going down the stairs have to do with that? And who are these 3 ladies by the way?
WTF does the Tippit murder have to do with it?
WTF does two coffins have to do with it?

And let's see how much of a tinfoil merchant you are.

Do you see the difference in JFK's head between this:

(https://i.postimg.cc/LXb8kHsN/z292-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

And this?

(https://i.postimg.cc/xdjmt102/z330-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

or this?

(https://i.postimg.cc/wjc86wWX/z328-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Quote
we think you learned this game from the Warren Commission.

Candygram for ....!
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 16, 2022, 02:22:14 AM
You are having a debate with yourself then.

I'm not exactly surprised that you lack the courage to say you notice the massive crater in the top of JFK's head.
You can clearly see it but you will be betraying your tinfoil buddy if you acknowledge it.
It's kinda cute in a way.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 16, 2022, 02:39:12 AM
I'm not exactly surprised that you lack the courage to say you notice the massive crater in the top of JFK's head.
You can clearly see it but you will be betraying your tinfoil buddy if you acknowledge it.
It's kinda cute in a way.

So, you are the one who has the "courage" to say that you see what you want to see in those blurry pictures and all those who don't actually see what you want them to see are cowards?

You can clearly see it

And now you are psychic as well? Amazing....  :D


Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 16, 2022, 03:16:10 AM
So, you are the one who has the "courage" to say that you see what you want to see in those blurry pictures and all those who don't actually see what you want them to see are cowards?

You can clearly see it

And now you are psychic as well? Amazing....  :D

That you can look at those images and pretend you don't see the massive deformation in the top of JFK's head is cowardly.
You present yourself on this forum as someone with no agenda who just looks at the evidence but you've exposed yourself as another tinfoil nobody who lacks the courage to reveal his flaky beliefs and snipes from the sidelines to boost his fragile ego.
You're denial of JFK's head wound in the images I posted is cowardly and hypocritical.
More importantly, you've outed yourself as such in front of the whole forum.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 16, 2022, 03:49:56 AM
I stand corrected. I misread your post. My bad.

Now you've got me utterly confused.

Here you say;

you still have the 21 members of the HSCA's photographic analysis panel. That panel confirmed the authenticity of the X-Rays and the photos.

but earlier you said;

I never said that the HSCA photographic experts verified that the X-Rays were of Kennedy.

Could you please explain how you can confirm the authenticity of the X-Rays without verifying that the X-Rays were of Kennedy?

Earlier in this thread you said the X-Rays had "been authenticated six ways from Sunday."

It now turns out that you apparently were merely talking about Ebersole and Custer and the recollections of Humes and Boswell. So, you've two men, who actually conducted the most questionable autopsy in history, and who are never going to say anything but what you would expect from them and two men that actually took the X-Rays and even one of those (and I still haven't checked Ebersol) had some doubts about some of the X-Rays.

Oh well, at least now we know what you mean by "six ways from Sunday"

The HSCA Photographic analysis panel and the HSCA medical panel were two separate panels. The HSCA Photographic analysis panel confirmed the authenticity of the autopsy photos and X-Rays. The HSCA medical panel confirmed that the X-Rays were of Kennedy.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 16, 2022, 03:51:20 AM

That you can look at those images and pretend you don't see the massive deformation in the top of JFK's head is cowardly.
You present yourself on this forum as someone with no agenda who just looks at the evidence but you've exposed yourself as another tinfoil nobody who lacks the courage to reveal his flaky beliefs and snipes from the sidelines to boost his fragile ego.
You're denial of JFK's head wound in the images I posted is cowardly and hypocritical.
More importantly, you've outed yourself as such in front of the whole forum.


That you can look at those images and pretend you don't see the massive deformation in the top of JFK's head is cowardly.

When did I ever pretend that? Of course I see what's going on in those two frames, I just can't interpret what I am seeing exactly. You previously claimed you could actually see a "massive crater in the top of JFK's head". I don't see that. I'm sorry if you don't like that.

But talking about pretending not to see something. What about the bulging of the back of the head? Do you see that? And if not, how do you explain the pieces of skull that blew onto the trunk of the limo and into the street?

You present yourself on this forum as someone with no agenda who just looks at the evidence

And that's exactly what I did. Just like the prayerman images or those who allegedly show a shooter behind the fence, I simply do not see what you think or want to you see in two blurry pictures of the headshot.

but you've exposed yourself as another tinfoil nobody who lacks the courage to reveal his flaky beliefs and snipes from the sidelines to boost his fragile ego.

You're denial of JFK's head wound in the images I posted is cowardly and hypocritical.
More importantly, you've outed yourself as such in front of the whole forum. 


Wow, this entire hissy fit simply because somebody does not see what you want him to see in a blurry image? Do you really feel so entitled that you can not understand that not everybody shares these - shall we say - awesome powers of observation that you seem to think you have?

Actually, with this kind of BS, it's you who is exposing himself as an arrogant prick who gets extremely vindictive when somebody disagrees with him or, as in this case, simply doesn't see what you want him to see. You are making a complete fool of yourself. Perhaps you should try to get that aggression of yours under control.... Just a suggestion!

Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 16, 2022, 03:58:17 AM
The HSCA Photographic analysis panel and the HSCA medical panel were two separate panels. The HSCA Photographic analysis panel confirmed the authenticity of the autopsy photos and X-Rays. The HSCA medical panel confirmed that the X-Rays were of Kennedy.

That doesn't really answer my question, does it now?

Only X-Rays that were of Kennedy could possibly be authentic, right? And X-Rays that were not of Kennedy could never be authentic, right?

So let me rephrase my question... 

Could you please explain how the HSCA Photographic analysis panel can confirm the authenticity of the X-Rays without verifying themselves that the X-Rays were of Kennedy? Or did they simply conclude they were authentic, based on the confirmation of the HSCA medical panel that the X-Rays were of Kennedy? Or vice versa?

Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 16, 2022, 04:00:18 AM
That you can look at those images and pretend you don't see the massive deformation in the top of JFK's head is cowardly.

When did I ever pretend that? Of course I see what's going on in those two frames, I just can't interpret what I am seeing exactly. You previously claimed you could actually see a "massive crater in the top of JFK's head". I don't see that. I'm sorry if you don't like that.

But talking about pretending not to see something. What about the bulging of the back of the head? Do you see that? And if not, how do you explain the pieces of skull that blew onto the trunk of the limo and into the street?

You present yourself on this forum as someone with no agenda who just looks at the evidence

And that's exactly what I did. Just like the prayerman images or those who allegedly show a shooter behind the fence, I simply do not see what you think or want to you see in two blurry pictures of the headshot.

but you've exposed yourself as another tinfoil nobody who lacks the courage to reveal his flaky beliefs and snipes from the sidelines to boost his fragile ego.

You're denial of JFK's head wound in the images I posted is cowardly and hypocritical.
More importantly, you've outed yourself as such in front of the whole forum. 


Wow, this entire hissy fit simply because somebody does not see what you want him to see in a blurry image? Do you really feel so entitled that you can not understand that not everybody shares these - shall we say - awesome powers of observation that you seem to think you have?

Actually, with this kind of BS, it's you who is exposing himself as an arrogant prick who gets extremely vindictive when somebody disagrees with him or, as in this case, simply doesn't see what you want him to see. You are making a complete fool of yourself. Perhaps you should try to get that aggression of yours under control.... Just a suggestion!

"I just can't interpret what I am seeing exactly."

Yet another spineless contribution.
You don't see the massive crater in the top of JFK's head because the image is too blurry but you can see JFK's head bulging at the back?
More hypocrisy from the gutless wonder.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 16, 2022, 04:36:22 AM
That doesn't really answer my question, does it now?

Only X-Rays that were of Kennedy could possibly be authentic, right? And X-Rays that were not of Kennedy could never be authentic, right?

So let me rephrase my question... 

Could you please explain how the HSCA Photographic analysis panel can confirm the authenticity of the X-Rays without verifying themselves that the X-Rays were of Kennedy? Or did they simply conclude they were authentic, based on the confirmation of the HSCA medical panel that the X-Rays were of Kennedy? Or vice versa?

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0118b.htm

Begin reading at near the bottom of the page, at (551). 13 pages.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 16, 2022, 04:37:27 AM
"I just can't interpret what I am seeing exactly."

Yet another spineless contribution.
You don't see the massive crater in the top of JFK's head because the image is too blurry but you can see JFK's head bulging at the back?
More hypocrisy from the gutless wonder.

What a nice sympathetic guy you are....  :D

And still no explanation about how two pieces of skull could have ended up on the trunk of the limo and behind the car. And then you call me a gutless wonder..... Go figure!
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 16, 2022, 04:38:21 AM
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0118b.htm

Begin reading at near the bottom of the page, at (551). 13 pages.

I'll leave that until the weekend.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 16, 2022, 06:12:25 AM
"I just can't interpret what I am seeing exactly."

Yet another spineless contribution.
You don't see the massive crater in the top of JFK's head because the image is too blurry but you can see JFK's head bulging at the back?
More hypocrisy from the gutless wonder.

Yeah, the selected visual interpretation when it suits their particular agenda is the epitome of gutless, especially when someone uses this disgusting tactic just to win an argument which they never even comprehended in the first place.

Anyway, I made this Gif of Z312-Z315 from an extremely high definition early generation copy and the wound area and resulting bone flap is clearly seen. Besides a bullet hole, the rear of his head was totally absent of any other wound.

(https://i.postimg.cc/WbtCmRQz/z312-z315-close.gif)

Because creating Gif's comprimises image quality, here's the images that I took from my original, so a little bit further down the food chain but still a ton better most of what's available on the internet.

(https://i.postimg.cc/8CDjfbjp/z312-closea.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/xdRqvbzK/z315-closea.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 16, 2022, 12:24:15 PM
Yeah, the selected visual interpretation when it suits their particular agenda is the epitome of gutless, especially when someone uses this disgusting tactic just to win an argument which they never even comprehended in the first place.

Anyway, I made this Gif of Z312-Z315 from an extremely high definition early generation copy and the wound area and resulting bone flap is clearly seen. Besides a bullet hole, the rear of his head was totally absent of any other wound.

(https://i.postimg.cc/WbtCmRQz/z312-z315-close.gif)

Because creating Gif's comprimises image quality, here's the images that I took from my original, so a little bit further down the food chain but still a ton better most of what's available on the internet.

(https://i.postimg.cc/8CDjfbjp/z312-closea.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/xdRqvbzK/z315-closea.jpg)

JohnM

Amazing how frustrated and aggressive some LNs can get when somebody simply does not see what they want him to see.

when someone uses this disgusting tactic just to win an argument which they never even comprehended in the first place.

What a pathetically stupid comment to make. How can anybody win an argument they don't comprehend?

What I see in these better quality gifs is a massive explosion near the temple area and, if the vertical lines in the pictures are at the same position in each frame, the back of the head bulging. I don't see the "massive crater in the top of JFK's head" that Dan o'meara wants me to see.

Perhaps you can explain how two pieces of skull could have ended up on the trunk of the limo and on the street behind it?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 16, 2022, 06:56:54 PM

Perhaps you can explain how two pieces of skull could have ended up on the trunk of the limo and on the street behind it?

There's no real evidence that any piece of skull ended up on the trunk. The skull bone that was found on the street or near it was not found behind where JFK was positioned at the time of the head shot.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 16, 2022, 07:26:37 PM
There's no real evidence that any piece of skull ended up on the trunk. The skull bone that was found on the street or near it was not found behind where JFK was positioned at the time of the head shot.

Except Jackie said she climbed on the trunk to retrieve a piece of his skull.

The skull bone that was found on the street or near it was not found behind where JFK was positioned at the time of the head shot.

Oh, you really are going to need to prove this one!
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 16, 2022, 07:29:04 PM
In the cases of the motorcycle escorts, it was Bobby Hargis and B. J. Martin who were struck with blood and tissue from the fusillade. The significance of this is that they were riding to the left of Kennedy. Hargis told a reporter he was splattered with blood and the impact was so hard he thought he himself might have been hit. Later, while walking to the Sheriff’s Department, a colleague told him he had something on his lip: it was a piece of Kennedy’s brain and skull bone. (Thompson, pp. 55, 56) Martin’s cycle was also splattered with blood and flesh and he said that the left side of his helmet was also hit.

 Thumb1:

Now let's wait and watch how Tim is going to explain that Hargis was not really driving behind the limo or at least next to the trunk. That should be good.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 16, 2022, 08:23:15 PM
In the cases of the motorcycle escorts, it was Bobby Hargis and B. J. Martin who were struck with blood and tissue from the fusillade. The significance of this is that they were riding to the left of Kennedy. Hargis told a reporter he was splattered with blood and the impact was so hard he thought he himself might have been hit. Later, while walking to the Sheriff’s Department, a colleague told him he had something on his lip: it was a piece of Kennedy’s brain and skull bone. (Thompson, pp. 55, 56) Martin’s cycle was also splattered with blood and flesh and he said that the left side of his helmet was also hit.

Where can we read or hear Hargis say that he had a piece of Kennedy's skull bone on his lip?

Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 16, 2022, 08:27:13 PM
Except Jackie said she climbed on the trunk to retrieve a piece of his skull.

When, where, and to who did Jackie say that she climbed on the trunk to retrieve a piece of his skull?

Quote
The skull bone that was found on the street or near it was not found behind where JFK was positioned at the time of the head shot.

Oh, you really are going to need to prove this one!

Why? I will try to later on. In the meantime, how about you tying to prove that the skull bone was found at a position that was forward of where Kennedy was at the time of the head shot?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 16, 2022, 09:18:56 PM
When, where, and to who did Jackie say that she climbed on the trunk to retrieve a piece of his skull?

Why? I will try to later on. In the meantime, how about you tying to prove that the skull bone was found at a position that was forward of where Kennedy was at the time of the head shot?

I will try to later on

Yeah, that's what I thought.... That's the Tim I remember!  Thumb1:

In the meantime, how about you tying to prove that the skull bone was found at a position that was forward of where Kennedy was at the time of the head shot?

Why would I have to do that? I never said anything of the kind.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 16, 2022, 11:01:32 PM
When, where, and to who did Jackie say that she climbed on the trunk to retrieve a piece of his skull?

The trunk of the Limo can be seen in this ultra high definition copy of Zapruder and I see no obvious pieces of anything.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Bnd6YFTd/Z328-trunk-of-Limo.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/Y2gvJbnb/Z337-trunk-of-Limo.jpg)

An of course the reason we see no obvious pieces on the trunk is that the shot came from behind, as can be seen in Z313 by the plume of matter being expelled out the front and the large piece of skull ejecting forward and up.

(https://i.postimg.cc/qM4ZKDWF/Z313-fragment.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 16, 2022, 11:08:47 PM
The trunk of the Limo can be seen in this ultra high definition copy of Zapruder and I see no obvious pieces of anything.

Now, there's a surprise....

So why did Jackie climb on the trunk? To clean it, perhaps?

Quote
An of course the reason we see no obvious pieces on the trunk is that the shot came from behind, as can be seen in Z313 by the plume of matter being expelled out the front and the large piece of skull ejecting forward and up.

JohnM

I don't see a shot coming from behind in Z313. All I see is an explosion in Kennedy's head.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 16, 2022, 11:32:52 PM
Where can we read or hear Hargis say that he had a piece of Kennedy's skull bone on his lip?

Bobby Hargis
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/hargis.htm
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 16, 2022, 11:34:41 PM
You will not find it in the WR if thats what you are asking. But if you look in the right places (such as Education Forum) you will find it! But you have to get off your keester first!

I don't think its my job or anyone else here to educate you about common facts about this case. Maybe learn some stuff then you won't come across as so ignorant.

It's your claim, not mine. If you're too lazy to get off your own keester, perhaps you should refrain from making claims that are too much trouble for you to substantiate.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 16, 2022, 11:36:51 PM
The amount of desperation and intellectual dishonesty at this site is pathetic.

Two of Kennedy's autopsy photos from behind, and on the right hand side shows the exposed skull flap. Btw besides a bullet hole the rear of Kennedy's head was pristine, therefore whoever said the wound was on the back of his head was either wrong, mistaken or lying!

(https://i.postimg.cc/50Vhj9JH/JFKBOHlatest-700.gif)

And when you actually examine where the Back of Head eyewitnesses say the wound was, well consistency isn't their forte! LOL!

(https://i.postimg.cc/Kzzmmryq/back-of-head-eyewitnesses.gif)

In the Zapruder frame before the headshot we can easily see Kennedy's temple.

(https://i.postimg.cc/SR3sBz02/z312-a1.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/mgZh1Rb5/Temple.jpg)

A quarter of a second later @ Z315 we can see the same skull flap as seen in the above autopsy photo, hanging down over the temple area, and right up to the top of the head we see a large patch of crimson and no hair.

(https://i.postimg.cc/nLr47gKn/z315-a1.jpg)

The two images combined have a slightly different perspective but the general location of all the body parts is abundantly clear.

(https://i.postimg.cc/xjM18qSR/z312-z315-close-temple.gif)

From the top we can see the missing area which corresponds to what's seen as the crimson area above Kennedy's right ear in Zapruder.

(https://i.postimg.cc/vT08Wqtd/JFKAutopsy-Morph-1.gif)

JohnM

Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 16, 2022, 11:37:53 PM
Bobby Hargis
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/hargis.htm

I read that one just the other day. Nowhere in it is Hargis quoted as saying that he had a piece of skull bone on his lip.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 16, 2022, 11:44:01 PM

Why would I have to do that? I never said anything of the kind.

In the meantime, how about you prove that the skull bone was found at a position that was behind where Kennedy was at the time of the head shot?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 16, 2022, 11:48:54 PM

The amount of desperation and intellectual dishonesty at this site is pathetic.

JohnM

Well, things got a little better for a while after you took a break, but I'm sure you'll bring the intellectual dishonesty back to it's former high level soon enough.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 16, 2022, 11:51:46 PM

In the meantime, how about you prove that the skull bone was found at a position that was behind where Kennedy was at the time of the head shot?


I will try to later on.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 16, 2022, 11:52:07 PM
I will try to later on

Yeah, that's what I thought.... That's the Tim I remember!  Thumb1:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Cranor%20Millicent/Item%2001.pdf

"This author wrote to Mr. Harper asking him to indicate the exact spot on an enclosed map of Dealey Plaza. He marked a place near the underpass that was nearly 100 feet southwest of where Kennedy was shot in the head."54

54. Letter to Milicent Cranor from William A. Harper, December 13.
1997

(https://i.imgur.com/xvP4Tuq.gif)

You're welcome.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 17, 2022, 12:02:59 AM
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Cranor%20Millicent/Item%2001.pdf

"This author wrote to Mr. Harper asking him to indicate the exact spot on an enclosed map of Dealey Plaza. He marked a place near the underpass that was nearly 100 feet southwest of where Kennedy was shot in the head."54

54. Letter to Milicent Cranor from William A. Harper, December 13.
1997

(https://i.imgur.com/xvP4Tuq.gif)

You're welcome.

Nice work Tim, I'm sure these hardcore, no life CT's know perfectly well where the Harper said the Harper fragment was recovered from, but they aren't here for the truth, they just want to dredge up the same old refuted nonsense again and again as if somehow their constant bleating will somehow change history.

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 17, 2022, 01:55:42 AM
The soft matte insert is just too hard for your feeble brain to comprehend.

As soon as you apply another element you need to reprocess the image and an inescapable result is that it introduces a new layer of film grain, which is instantly detectable.
Also we have two angles of Kennedy's head so even if you can avoid the excessive grain structure then you have to have a "stand-in" which needs to be photographed under the same lighting, with the same perspective and from an exact identical distance because even a minute change will mean the film grain will be out of scale and again instantly detectable, it's not as easy as you Noobs think.
At the end of the day the Autopsy Photos were NEVER meant to be in the public domain and the only reason we have them is because a CT leaked them. So to think that they altered the private medical photos of Kennedy's autopsy just in case they were leaked is absurd and really over thinking the problem.
What was photographed was Kennedy and the injuries in the photos are what happened.

Btw what is a "soft" matte insert? And then point out exactly where your "soft" matte insert exists in the following image created from a stereoscopic pair of autopsy photos and tell us how they created this mathematically accurate marvel?

(https://i.postimg.cc/50Vhj9JH/JFKBOHlatest-700.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 17, 2022, 03:39:36 AM
No I think the problem is you just have faulty thinking thats why you believe crap like the WR.

So I gather from your non compliance re where and what your "soft" matte insert is supposed to be, means that you don't have a clue and is just another of your loud mouth claims/accusations that you don't support with evidence. -Sigh-

Btw as I have said many times in the past, "I don't have a dog in this hunt" and I don't really care about anyone else's opinion but mine so I've always been totally neutral, and I base my conclusions on science and the minds of many experts across a plethora of forensic studies, whereas you seem to be overly emotionally involved and your only easily refuted knowledge comes from some YT video or a dumbass conspiracy site.

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 17, 2022, 04:00:17 AM
So I gather from your non compliance re where and what your "soft" matte insert is supposed to be, means that you don't have a clue and is just another of your loud mouth claims/accusations that you don't support with evidence. -Sigh-

Btw as I have said many times in the past, "I don't have a dog in this hunt" and I don't really care about anyone else's opinion but mine so I've always been totally neutral, and I base my conclusions on science and the minds of many experts across a plethora of forensic studies, whereas you seem to be overly emotionally involved and your only easily refuted knowledge comes from some YT video or a dumbass conspiracy site.

JohnM

"I don't have a dog in this hunt"

I've always been totally neutral

I base my conclusions on science and the minds of many experts across a plethora of forensic studies

Yeah, sure... and your real name is John Mytton and you live in Sidney....  :D

Comedy central just called and asked for your number.... Thumb1:
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 17, 2022, 04:33:15 AM
No I think you are disingenuous and you know exactly what it is. It certainly is not my obligation to explain to you what it is.

Look Mong, it's beyond clear that in every thread you post, that you are way out of your depth and here once again, your arrogant nonsense reply when you are caught out, just makes you look more the fool.
Go back to square one and do some actual frigging research and come back when you can mount a successful challenge because otherwise you will become just like tired old Weidmann, who after failing to win even 1 argument, has now run out of ideas and attacks people over their Forum name and where they live. Sad, very sad.

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 17, 2022, 04:54:12 AM
Look Mong, it's beyond clear that in every thread you post, that you are way out of your depth and here once again, your arrogant nonsense reply when you are caught out, just makes you look more the fool.
Go back to square one and do some actual frigging research and come back when you can mount a successful challenge because otherwise you will become just like tired old Weidmann, who after failing to win even 1 argument, has now run out of ideas and attacks people over their Forum name and where they live. Sad, very sad.

JohnM

otherwise you will become just like tired old Weidmann, who after failing to win even 1 argument, has now run out of ideas and attacks people over their Forum name and where they live.

Paranoid much?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 18, 2022, 10:07:33 AM
Look Mong,
JohnM

I thought that calling another forum member by a derogatory name was forbidden on the forum. Shame when members lower themselves to such behaviour.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 18, 2022, 10:32:44 AM
'Sidney' lol

Try 'Sydney' Mr. Lear Jet
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 18, 2022, 12:10:47 PM
I thought that calling another forum member by a derogatory name was forbidden on the forum. Shame when members lower themselves to such behaviour.

For a start I wasn't using the name "Mong" as a shortened Mongoloid, and if that's what you are insinuating then that says more about you than me. In fact it's been a running Joke and I used Mong as a shortened version of "Mongo" a character from Blazing Saddles and if you find that offensive and bad behaviour then that's just bad luck.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/911168770273611777/QYTBR5Ua_400x400.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 18, 2022, 12:22:18 PM
'Sidney' lol

Try 'Sydney' Mr. Lear Jet

On my pc autocorrect changes Sydney to Sidney, because that's the Spanish name.
Only an ignorant fool can't work that out and thinks he scores a point.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 18, 2022, 12:23:00 PM
For a start I wasn't using the name "Mong" as a shortened Mongoloid, and if that's what you are insinuating then that says more about you than me. In fact it's been a running Joke and I used Mong as a shortened version of "Mongo" a character from Blazing Saddles and if you find that offensive and bad behaviour then that's just bad luck.

JohnM

Yeah, right. You would never ever insult anybody on this forum, right?   :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 18, 2022, 12:47:04 PM
'Sidney' lol

Try 'Sydney' Mr. Lear Jet

(https://c.tenor.com/91xjtSzXm6YAAAAC/crowd-laughing.gif)

Yeah, and let's not forget the "Lear jet", -snigger-, Weidmann is the Kook's Kook and is the gift that keeps on giving! God bless him.



JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 18, 2022, 01:12:23 PM

Yeah, and let's not forget the "Lear jet", -snigger-, Weidmann is the Kook's Kook and is the gift that keeps on giving! God bless him.

JohnM

Thanks for showing once again what envy can do to a man.

Too bad that whenever Chapman and/or Mytton joins a conversation the thread quickly ends in chaos. You wouldn't be related to Chapman, would you now?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 18, 2022, 03:10:53 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/QdXQLMVf/jackieontrunk.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 19, 2022, 12:03:16 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/QdXQLMVf/jackieontrunk.gif)

JohnM

A good reason For Jackie wanting to get out of the limo is that one moment she is cruising along in the Dallas sunshine, then seconds later she is staring at her husband's exposed brain:

(https://i.postimg.cc/kGwbgFqc/Z337-trunk-of-Limo-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/) (https://ralphrobertspersonaltrainer.com/5-workouts-for-a-firmer-bust)

At interesting point about the above Z-frame close-up is JFK's hair. It's there on the back of his head but ends abruptly in a straight line extending from the top of his ear.
There is no hair forward of this straight line.
It must surely be the case the large piece of scalp on the right side of his head has been blown over to the side (the injury described by Jenkins). It is possible to make out a large piece of skull bone, stuck to the inside of the scalp.
Obviously, the Tinfoil Brigade won't be able to see this straight line where the hair seems to end abruptly.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 19, 2022, 12:41:33 AM
A good reason For Jackie wanting to get out of the limo is that one moment she is cruising along in the Dallas sunshine, then seconds later she is staring at her husband's exposed brain:

(https://i.postimg.cc/kGwbgFqc/Z337-trunk-of-Limo-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)


Watch Jackie, she's horrified as in the frame above then she put's her right hand on the back of Kennedy's neck/head and pushes him forward then her left hand comes down on what's left on the top of Kennedy's head as she vaults out the back.

(https://i.postimg.cc/8PKM0mSk/jackiegetout.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 19, 2022, 12:50:40 AM
Watch Jackie, she's horrified as in the frame above then she put's her right hand on the back of Kennedy's neck/head and pushes him forward then her left hand comes down on what's left on the top of Kennedy's head as she vaults out the back.

(https://i.postimg.cc/8PKM0mSk/jackiegetout.gif)

JohnM

She can't get out of there quick enough. It's mad to think what might have happened if Clint Hill hadn't shown up to stop her.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 19, 2022, 01:15:11 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/QdXQLMVf/jackieontrunk.gif)

JohnM

 I don't see her grabbing anything in that.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 19, 2022, 01:25:12 AM
She can't get out of there quick enough. It's mad to think what might have happened if Clint Hill hadn't shown up to stop her.

Agreed, she's in such a hurry that she even uses her husbands exploded head as a push off point so that she can jump quicker out the back, if Clint wasn't there I reckon she would have tumbled onto the road. Also worth noting is that Jackie goes from looking at her husband to instantly moving to get out which means she didn't have her enough time to establish that anything was retrievable on the trunk.

(https://i.postimg.cc/8PKM0mSk/jackiegetout.gif)

This stabilized Zapruder footage shows what appears to be a shiny pristine trunk. And as Tim has just pointed out, she slides her hand across the trunk surface and doesn't grab anything.

(https://i.postimg.cc/QdXQLMVf/jackieontrunk.gif)

JohnM





Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2022, 01:16:43 PM
I don't see her grabbing anything in that.

Start at 29:09

Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Steve Barber on March 19, 2022, 05:49:19 PM
She can't get out of there quick enough. It's mad to think what might have happened if Clint Hill hadn't shown up to stop her.

 Hear Hear!!!  Dan O'Meara!

  Notice also if you will, she places her hand right in the area on the back of his head that conspiracy buffs say is "blackened out" to cover up the "rear head wound".
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Steve Barber on March 19, 2022, 06:04:06 PM
I saw this interview years ago, and heard nothing that convinced me of a head wound anywhere but where Mrs. Kennedy saw it. On top of the head!  She's looking right into the skull cavity in frames 335 and 337 (clearest of the many frames) The large skull flap hanging over the temple belongs to the top of the head.   Mrs. Kennedy pushed this piece back into place, and she said as much in her interview with Theodore White 7 days after the assassination.  She said she was "Trying to hold the top of his head down...Maybe I could keep his brains in".  The piece of matter that Pepper Jenkins said she handed him was not picked up off the trunk lid.  She picked nothing up off the trunk lid.  The Zap[ruder film shows her gloved wide hand open and flat against the extremely slick surface of the trunk lid as her right hand meets the trunk lid surface, sliding out from in front of her, causing her to slam down onto the trunk lid with her left elbow.  It's all there in the Zapruder film gif John Mytton posted.  Thank you, John.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Steve Barber on March 19, 2022, 06:17:33 PM
You have proof that the 20-something witnesses to the back head wound were all lying? Lets hear it. That film clip certainly doesn't do it.

 I didn't say they were "lying".  You did!  They were mistaken, and the film and especially Mrs. Kennedy's own words prove it.  They didnt see any hole in the back of the head because there was none!  Three different home movies, and a still photograph prove it, as do the interviews of people like Mrs. Kennedy( And not one, single person saw the head damage better than she did!). Zapruder, Sitzman, Hargis, the Newmans, and Brehm all saw the condition of the head.  Brehm said he saw the top of his head fly off.    What the people at Parkland saw was after the fact, when Mrs. Kennedy was trying to keep his brain inside his skull, and "keep the top of his head down" so that "maybe I could keep his brains in".  Those are her words spoken to Theodore White whom interviewed her within 7 days of the assassination.   And there were 2 skull fragments found in the grass and one in the street by 3 different people, Seymour Weitzman, Billy Harper and  David Burros. The skull fragments were all located several yards ahead of where the limousine was positioned at the time of the shooting. None of them were found to the rear of the limousine.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 19, 2022, 10:14:21 PM
Start at 29:09


Yeah, she had some of his brain in her hand. And? She held his head in her hand on the way to parkland, trying to keep the flap closed. That she would have some of the brain in her hand is not surprising.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Steve Barber on March 19, 2022, 10:14:39 PM
Just like you are mistaken right?

  Wrong!   I'm just listening to what the evidence points to by the people who saw the damage to the head PRIOR the time the victim left the plaza, Mrs. Kennedy closed up the wound while on the way to Parkland hospital, and the condition and location of what was left of her husband's head which she described in graphic detail within 7 days of the assassination.   

What's your explanation as to why you ignore what happened at the crime scene, and inside the limousine by the one person who held her husband's brain in her hands, and tried to hold the top of his head down so as to try to keep his brain where it belongs?  What part of "The top of his head" cannot you comprehend?  Had it been the back or the side of his head that was gone, she would have specified such.  We see the top of his head fly off in three separate films.  Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore. It was calculated by Dr. John K. Lattimer that the speed of the skull fragments flying off the head was around 88 MPH.  Are you going to try to say that the top of his head was intact when clearly it wasn't-based upon what three films and the closest eyewitness to the person who was killed just inches away from her said?    If so, you have a real problem.   
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 19, 2022, 11:13:11 PM
You have proof that the 20-something witnesses to the back head wound were all lying? Lets hear it. That film clip certainly doesn't do it.

Please explain why these eyewitnesses of yours are all describing something dramatically different?

(https://i.postimg.cc/Kzzmmryq/back-of-head-eyewitnesses.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2022, 11:26:37 PM
Please explain why these eyewitnesses of yours are all describing something dramatically different?

(https://i.postimg.cc/Kzzmmryq/back-of-head-eyewitnesses.gif)

JohnM

They are not. They are all pointing to the same location, albeit not 100% in the same manner.

Only somebody desperate for a bogus argument would claim they were all pointing to a "dramatically different" location.

Back of the head = back of the head, it is not "top of the head", whether you like it or not
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Steve Barber on March 20, 2022, 12:33:21 AM
They are not. They are all pointing to the same location, albeit not 100% in the same manner.

Only somebody desperate for a bogus argument would claim they were all pointing to a "dramatically different" location.

Back of the head = back of the head, it is not "top of the head", whether you like it or not

 Its really large of you to call Mrs. Kennedy a liar.  Funny thing though, in three separate films, and one snapshot showing the back of the head, Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore, not one of them show a wound back there,--least of all the Zapruder film!  No hole because none exited. we have some of you people claiming the back of the head is "blackened out" to hide a hole, yet Mrs. Kennedy hands just happen to cover that very spot when she shoves his head away from her as she attempts to exit the back seat.  It's all nothing but nonsense. 
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 20, 2022, 12:36:24 AM
Funny thing though, in three separate films, and one snapshot showing the back of the head, Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore, not one of them show a wound back there,--least of all the Zapruder film!  No hole because none exited. we have some of you people claiming the back of the head is "blackened out" to hide a hole, yet Mrs. Kennedy hands just happen to cover that very spot when she shoves his head away from her as she attempts to exit the back seat.  It's all nothing but nonsense.

And how do you explain the back of the head wound seen, at and after that autopsy, by people like Paul O'Connor, Floyd Reibe, Jerrol Custer and Tom Robinson?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 20, 2022, 12:50:28 AM

"The video presented above features Paul K. O'Connor being questioned while on the witness stand during the 1986 television docu-trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald".

The late Mr. O'Connor was a technician at Bethesda Naval Hospital who assisted at President Kennedy's autopsy on the night of November 22, 1963.

In the above video, O'Connor is first questioned by defense lawyer Gerry Spence (who was representing his "client", Lee Harvey Oswald), and then "U.S. Government" prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi gets a chance to cross-examine O'Connor, with Vince exposing the inaccuracies being told by the witness with respect to his outrageous allegation of: "There was no brain [in JFK's head] to be removed [at the autopsy]".

There are many conspiracy theorists who put their complete faith in O'Connor's wild tales, even though (to my knowledge) he is the only witness on the planet who ever said he saw all four of these crazy and impossible things on 11/22/63:

1.) There was no brain at all in President Kennedy's head.

2.) There was a huge wound in the back (occipital) portion of JFK's head.

3.) President Kennedy was inside a body bag when he was removed from the casket at Bethesda (instead of being wrapped merely in sheets, as all the autopsy doctors have said).

4.) JFK arrived at Bethesda in a cheap "shipping" type casket.

That #1 item alone makes O'Connor out to be an enormous fraud/kook/nutcase (take your pick). Because there was a whole lot of brain left inside Kennedy's head when he arrived at Bethesda. In fact, the majority of his brain was still inside his cranium when he arrived at the Bethesda morgue. [See Warren Commission Final Report, Page 544.]

Therefore, O'Connor's ridiculous assertion that the entire brain (save a few small "bits and pieces") was gone is reason enough right there, in my opinion, to pretty much dismiss everything else he had to say about President John F. Kennedy's autopsy."

David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/paul-oconnor.html
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Steve Barber on March 20, 2022, 12:53:13 AM
And how do you explain the back of the head wound seen, at and after that autopsy, by people like Paul O'Connor, Floyd Reibe, Jerrol Custer and Tom Robinson?

 Excuse me, but I'll rely on what Mrs. Kennedy said to Theodore White within 7 days of her husbands head exploding in her face as he was killed.  You go right ahead rely on the words of people whom years later were interviewed by a nutcase named Lifton, and said that the autopsy pictures he showed them weren't what they saw, basing it all on memory from years and years ago.  I don't give a damn what these people said years later!   Mrs. Kennedy described--in graphic detail exactly--what she saw, and it was written down and proof read by her-- what she tried to do to save her husband--trying to keep the top of his head down so that "maybe I could keep the brains in".  You choose to completely toss out what she said, and instead rely on people who were claiming they saw something that wasn't there!!  TYPICAL foolish nonsesne!   
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 20, 2022, 01:13:11 AM

"The video presented above features Paul K. O'Connor being questioned while on the witness stand during the 1986 television docu-trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald".

The late Mr. O'Connor was a technician at Bethesda Naval Hospital who assisted at President Kennedy's autopsy on the night of November 22, 1963.

In the above video, O'Connor is first questioned by defense lawyer Gerry Spence (who was representing his "client", Lee Harvey Oswald), and then "U.S. Government" prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi gets a chance to cross-examine O'Connor, with Vince exposing the inaccuracies being told by the witness with respect to his outrageous allegation of: "There was no brain [in JFK's head] to be removed [at the autopsy]".

There are many conspiracy theorists who put their complete faith in O'Connor's wild tales, even though (to my knowledge) he is the only witness on the planet who ever said he saw all four of these crazy and impossible things on 11/22/63:

1.) There was no brain at all in President Kennedy's head.

2.) There was a huge wound in the back (occipital) portion of JFK's head.

3.) President Kennedy was inside a body bag when he was removed from the casket at Bethesda (instead of being wrapped merely in sheets, as all the autopsy doctors have said).

4.) JFK arrived at Bethesda in a cheap "shipping" type casket.

That #1 item alone makes O'Connor out to be an enormous fraud/kook/nutcase (take your pick). Because there was a whole lot of brain left inside Kennedy's head when he arrived at Bethesda. In fact, the majority of his brain was still inside his cranium when he arrived at the Bethesda morgue. [See Warren Commission Final Report, Page 544.]

Therefore, O'Connor's ridiculous assertion that the entire brain (save a few small "bits and pieces") was gone is reason enough right there, in my opinion, to pretty much dismiss everything else he had to say about President John F. Kennedy's autopsy."

David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/paul-oconnor.html

I destroyed this pathetic crap by Von Pein some days ago. Even if O'Connor was the only person who observed all four things, there are witnesses who corroborate each individual thing he saw. It's just a very weak attempt to discredit one witness by ignoring the witnesses who support him.

Just how weak does your case have to be to use these kind of tactics to keep it alive?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 20, 2022, 01:35:51 AM
And how do you explain the back of the head wound seen, at and after that autopsy, by people like Paul O'Connor, Floyd Reibe, Jerrol Custer and Tom Robinson?

How do you explain it when the Z-film shows there is no such blowout at the back?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 20, 2022, 01:44:30 AM
Excuse me, but I'll rely on what Mrs. Kennedy said to Theodore White within 7 days of her husbands head exploding in her face as he was killed.  You go right ahead rely on the words of people whom years later were interviewed by a nutcase named Lifton, and said that the autopsy pictures he showed them weren't what they saw, basing it all on memory from years and years ago.  I don't give a damn what these people said years later!   Mrs. Kennedy described--in graphic detail exactly--what she saw, and it was written down and proof read by her-- what she tried to do to save her husband--trying to keep the top of his head down so that "maybe I could keep the brains in".  You choose to completely toss out what she said, and instead rely on people who were claiming they saw something that wasn't there!!  TYPICAL foolish nonsesne!

Excuse me, but I'll rely on what Mrs. Kennedy said to Theodore White within 7 days of her husbands head exploding in her face as he was killed.

Yes you are excused.

You go right ahead rely on the words of people whom years later were interviewed by a nutcase named Lifton, and said that the autopsy pictures he showed them weren't what they saw, basing it all on memory from years and years ago.  I don't give a damn what these people said years later!   

Of course you don't give damn. I mean, why in the world would you care about what people who actually were present at the autopsy and saw the wound up close have to say. Yes, they did say it years later, because they were under orders not to say anything until they were given permission to talk to the HSCA and all say the same thing. Just how naive can you be?

You choose to completely toss out what she said, and instead rely on people who were claiming they saw something that wasn't there!!  TYPICAL foolish nonsesne!

What is utter nonsense is a silly, ignorant, fool. who wasn't there, dismissing testimony by people who were actually there and saw the wounds up close. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT WHAT WAS THERE AND WHAT WASN'T!
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 20, 2022, 02:07:59 AM
How do you explain it when the Z-film shows there is no such blowout at the back?

I'm not convinced the Z-film shows that
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 20, 2022, 02:09:14 AM
I'm not convinced the Z-film shows that

Then post a Z-frame that shows the blowout at the back of the head or at least name one.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 20, 2022, 02:58:38 AM
Then post a Z-frame that shows the blowout at the back of the head or at least name one.

Do you think that just because you don't see it in the Z-film it couldn't possibly have happened?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 20, 2022, 03:20:47 AM
Do you think that just because you don't see it in the Z-film it couldn't possibly have happened?

 :D :D :D
I'd forgotten about the "Weidmann Invisible Blowout" theory.
Just for the record - there is no way a massive blowout at the back of the skull would not appear on the Z-film.
The Z-film clearly shows "jets" of material being blown upwards from the top of JFK's head.

And let's have a closer look at the people you keep wheeling out who saw this blowout at the back of the head:
Jenkins - describes a massive flap on the side of the head that opened up to reveal a massive injury to the top of the head.
Custer - describes a wound he can get both hands into
Reibe - Q: Did you see any other—in addition to that injury that you just described, did you see any other injuries to the head?
           A: Yes, there was a flap of bone over on the side above the temporal area.
O' Connor - Regarding the wound in the head, O'Connor said there was 'I..no use me opening the skull because there were no brains."
                  O‘Connor described the defect as being in the region from the "...Occiptal around the temporal and parietal regions." He
                  said there was a "...massive hole, no little hole." O'Connor believes the bullet came in from the front right and blew out
                  the top.


Each man describes a massive injury, not just to the back of the head, but one consistent with what we see in the Z-film and autopsy pics.
You have nothing, zero, that demonstrates the injury to JFK's head was a blowout at the back of the head. It was a massive injury that removed most of the bone from the top right side of the skull.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 20, 2022, 03:23:27 AM
God gosh man get a hold of yourself. No offense to the late Jackie Kennedy-Onassis but I do not look to her to be the all-knowing expert on the ballistic evidence in this case. Nor would she want to be!!

What ballistic expertise is required to see the top of someone's head is missing?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 20, 2022, 03:38:54 AM
:D :D :D
I'd forgotten about the "Weidmann Invisible Blowout" theory.
Just for the record - there is no way a massive blowout at the back of the skull would not appear on the Z-film.
The Z-film clearly shows "jets" of material being blown upwards from the top of JFK's head.

And let's have a closer look at the people you keep wheeling out who saw this blowout at the back of the head:
Jenkins - describes a massive flap on the side of the head that opened up to reveal a massive injury to the top of the head.
Custer - describes a wound he can get both hands into
Reibe - Q: Did you see any other—in addition to that injury that you just described, did you see any other injuries to the head?
           A: Yes, there was a flap of bone over on the side above the temporal area.
O' Connor - Regarding the wound in the head, O'Connor said there was 'I..no use me opening the skull because there were no brains."
                  O‘Connor described the defect as being in the region from the "...Occiptal around the temporal and parietal regions." He
                  said there was a "...massive hole, no little hole." O'Connor believes the bullet came in from the front right and blew out
                  the top.


Each man describes a massive injury, not just to the back of the head, but one consistent with what we see in the Z-film and autopsy pics.
You have nothing, zero, that demonstrates the injury to JFK's head was a blowout at the back of the head. It was a massive injury that removed most of the bone from the top right side of the skull.

Just for the record - there is no way a massive blowout at the back of the skull would not appear on the Z-film.

I'll just have to take your word for that, right?

Each man describes a massive injury, not just to the back of the head,

And what makes you think I was only talking about an injury at the back of the head?

It's the LN crowd who is desperately trying to limit the wound to the top of the head.

You have nothing, zero, that demonstrates the injury to JFK's head was a blowout at the back of the head. It was a massive injury that removed most of the bone from the top right side of the skull.

If you say so..... oh wait, you were not present at the autopsy. Never mind....
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Steve Barber on March 20, 2022, 04:18:19 AM
(Disregard the "Not a Valid...")     Not a valid %s URLhttps://i.imgur.com/mla1XFS.mp4
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Steve Barber on March 20, 2022, 04:27:37 AM
I don't see that in the Z film and if you do, please get your vision checked soon!

Then you'd better be first in line to get your own vision checked.  And youre the person who needs to get a hold of yourself--not I.  You enjoy calling Mrs. Kennedy a liar because of your ridiculous , foolish pride.  You're so vain that you can't even admit when you're wrong when the evidence is readily available .  You'd rather insult the only person who saw her husbands head wound as she held his head in her hands, along with his brain.  You'd rather believe that she's incabalbe of determining what the top of her husband's head was!  That's just totally insufferable on your part!
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 20, 2022, 04:36:15 AM
What ballistic expertise is required to see the top of someone's head is missing?

Good one

She had the best seat in the house.
'Top, behind the forehead' she said.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 20, 2022, 07:51:09 AM
Then you'd better be first in line to get your own vision checked.  And youre the person who needs to get a hold of yourself--not I.  You enjoy calling Mrs. Kennedy a liar because of your ridiculous , foolish pride.  You're so vain that you can't even admit when you're wrong when the evidence is readily available .  You'd rather insult the only person who saw her husbands head wound as she held his head in her hands, along with his brain.  You'd rather believe that she's incabalbe of determining what the top of her husband's head was!  That's just totally insufferable on your part!

You forget, or rather ignore, the complete state of panic and confusion she must have been in when the shooting happened. You make it sound as if she just sat back and made a good examination of the head wound. Pathetic!
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 20, 2022, 08:19:03 AM

The first eyewitnesses all describe the same carnage as seen in Zapruder and the X-rays and the autopsy photos and the Nix film shows the same spray forward as Zapruder.

(https://i.postimg.cc/YCHbmbDS/dealey-plaza-eyewitness-1st-day-zapruder.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/qqbczZ6V/quick-jerk-h-GIFSoupcom.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/9fbcWQG0/Nix-and-Zapruder.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 20, 2022, 09:00:36 AM
The first eyewitnesses all describe the same carnage as seen in Zapruder and the X-rays and the autopsy photos and the Nix film shows the same spray forward as Zapruder.

JohnM

Isn't just too bad that Jerrol Custer, who actually took the X-Rays, later expressed doubt about the authenticity of some of them?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 20, 2022, 10:12:27 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/nhYWWWSy/Hsca-authenticity.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/yN1GCTwk/Hsca-authenticity2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/k5TpJbmw/Hsca-authenticity3.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rmzYKwyT/Hsca-authenticity4.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/hjwZxRhd/Hsca-authenticity5.jpg)
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 20, 2022, 12:39:15 PM
Just for the record - there is no way a massive blowout at the back of the skull would not appear on the Z-film.

I'll just have to take your word for that, right?

Not at all.
Just because I'm pointing out something unbelievably obvious doesn't mean you have to accept it.
Just because what you're proposing is clearly insane doesn't mean you can't express that.
You've made this "invisible blowout" claim a couple of times now, so it's obviously something you believe in. Can you explain to the forum how pieces of skull and brain matter being blown out of the back of JFK's head at high speed doesn't show up on the Z-film. I'm really interested to hear this explanation, and will be pressing you for one if you try to side-step it.
You can take my word for that.

Quote
You present yourself as someone who follows the evidence
Each man describes a massive injury, not just to the back of the head,

And what makes you think I was only talking about an injury at the back of the head?

It's the LN crowd who is desperately trying to limit the wound to the top of the head.

Please point to the post where you've been arguing for something other than an injury at the back of the head. My impression is that the sole argument you've used against the overwhelming evidence I've presented for a massive injury to the top of JFK's head, is that many witnesses described an injury to the back of JFK's head, not the top.
Where have you argued that the injury was also to the top of JFK's head? That's what I've been arguing, that's what the evidence overwhelmingly points to. Even the testimony of the witnesses you provided to support an injury to the back of JFK's head actually turns out to be describing a far more extensive injury.

Where have you argued for something other than an injury to the back of the head?

Quote
You have nothing, zero, that demonstrates the injury to JFK's head was a blowout at the back of the head. It was a massive injury that removed most of the bone from the top right side of the skull.

If you say so..... oh wait, you were not present at the autopsy. Never mind....

I've presented a mass of evidence supporting the argument that the injury to JFK's skull was a massive injury encompassing nearly all the right side of the skull.
You're attempt to counter this evidence and the arguments I've presented have now come down to "you were not present at the autopsy"  ::)

You have been exposed as someone who doesn't give a sh%t about the evidence. It is of no interest to you whatsoever. Your arguments in this thread have become more and more ridiculous and now you've trapped yourself in a position where you can't even consider the evidence with an open mind.
If that's not Tinfoil, I don't know what is.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 20, 2022, 12:49:54 PM
I don't see that in the Z film and if you do, please get your vision checked soon!

Firstly, the point was about Jackie describing an injury to the top of JFK's head. she was sat right beside him trying to hold his head together, so she doesn't need to be a ballistics expert to be able to describe the injury.

But, while we're at it.
You claim you can't see the massive injury to the top of JFK's head in the pic below.
You can't see the massive crater in the top of his head?

(https://i.postimg.cc/X7CS38bc/Z328-trunk-of-Limo-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

You really can't see it?
Because I think you're lying.
I think you're really weak-minded and can't change your weak mind when presented with evidence that refutes what you believe happened.
You can clearly see the massive deformation to the the of JFK's head in the picture above.
I can't wait to hear you deny it as it puts the last nail in your Tinfoil coffin.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 20, 2022, 01:02:33 PM
Not at all.
Just because I'm pointing out something unbelievably obvious doesn't mean you have to accept it.
Just because what you're proposing is clearly insane doesn't mean you can't express that.
You've made this "invisible blowout" claim a couple of times now, so it's obviously something you believe in. Can you explain to the forum how pieces of skull and brain matter being blown out of the back of JFK's head at high speed doesn't show up on the Z-film. I'm really interested to hear this explanation, and will be pressing you for one if you try to side-step it.
You can take my word for that.


Sidestepped. I'm not going to get into a yes/no argument with you about something that can or can not be seen in a blurry film.

Quote
Please point to the post where you've been arguing for something other than an injury at the back of the head. My impression is that the sole argument you've used against the overwhelming evidence I've presented for a massive injury to the top of JFK's head, is that many witnesses described an injury to the back of JFK's head, not the top.
Where have you argued that the injury was also to the top of JFK's head? That's what I've been arguing, that's what the evidence overwhelmingly points to. Even the testimony of the witnesses you provided to support an injury to the back of JFK's head actually turns out to be describing a far more extensive injury.

Where have you argued for something other than an injury to the back of the head?

I've presented a mass of evidence supporting the argument that the injury to JFK's skull was a massive injury encompassing nearly all the right side of the skull.
You're attempt to counter this evidence and the arguments I've presented have now come down to "you were not present at the autopsy"  ::)

Were you present at the autopsy? Well?....

My impression is that the sole argument you've used against the overwhelming evidence I've presented for a massive injury to the top of JFK's head, is that many witnesses described an injury to the back of JFK's head, not the top.

Overwhelming evidence? You are beginning to sound like John Mytton.

I don't give a damn what your impression is. It has always been beyond obvious that Kennedy's wound was at the top of his head. The question was just how far did the gap go at the back of the head. It is not my problem that you misunderstand things.

Quote
You have been exposed as someone who doesn't give a sh%t about the evidence. It is of no interest to you whatsoever. Your arguments in this thread have become more and more ridiculous and now you've trapped yourself in a position where you can't even consider the evidence with an open mind.
If that's not Tinfoil, I don't know what is.

Ah.. there is the ad hom.... I was wondering just how long it would take you this time.

You have been exposed as someone who doesn't give a sh%t about the evidence. It is of no interest to you whatsoever.

It's not the evidence that doesn't interest me. It's your interpretations of it, your opinions and assumptions that do not allow for any kind of reasonable debate. Like a little cry baby you start your usual hissy fit as soon as you don't get the response you want.

Your arguments in this thread have become more and more ridiculous and now you've trapped yourself in a position where you can't even consider the evidence with an open mind.

You always think that my arguments are ridiculous, so there is no surprise there. Why should I waste my time discussing something with somebody who from the outset considers my arguments to be ridiculous?
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on March 20, 2022, 11:05:22 PM
I love watching supposedly "rational" and "scholarly" people become totally unhinged when someone else does not buy into what they are selling.

Wow, I love my family, beautiful sunrises, the sound of waves gently crashing on the beach but to love what you perceive as someone becoming "unhinged" is just sick!

Even though it was obvious, thanks for finally admitting your only motivation, you aren't here to truthfully share ideas but are actively pursuing the passion that you "love".

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 20, 2022, 11:19:43 PM
Wow, I love my family, beautiful sunrises, the sound of waves gently crashing on the beach but to love what you perceive as someone becoming "unhinged" is just sick!

Even though it was obvious, thanks for finally admitting your only motivation, you aren't here to truthfully share ideas but are actively pursuing the passion that you "love".

JohnM

you aren't here to truthfully share ideas

Neither are you, Mr Propagandist.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 21, 2022, 11:59:25 AM
Sidestepped. I'm not going to get into a yes/no argument with you about something that can or can not be seen in a blurry film.

Were you present at the autopsy? Well?....

My impression is that the sole argument you've used against the overwhelming evidence I've presented for a massive injury to the top of JFK's head, is that many witnesses described an injury to the back of JFK's head, not the top.

Overwhelming evidence? You are beginning to sound like John Mytton.

I don't give a damn what your impression is. It has always been beyond obvious that Kennedy's wound was at the top of his head. The question was just how far did the gap go at the back of the head. It is not my problem that you misunderstand things.

Ah.. there is the ad hom.... I was wondering just how long it would take you this time.

You have been exposed as someone who doesn't give a sh%t about the evidence. It is of no interest to you whatsoever.

It's not the evidence that doesn't interest me. It's your interpretations of it, your opinions and assumptions that do not allow for any kind of reasonable debate. Like a little cry baby you start your usual hissy fit as soon as you don't get the response you want.

Your arguments in this thread have become more and more ridiculous and now you've trapped yourself in a position where you can't even consider the evidence with an open mind.

You always think that my arguments are ridiculous, so there is no surprise there. Why should I waste my time discussing something with somebody who from the outset considers my arguments to be ridiculous?

"It has always been beyond obvious that Kennedy's wound was at the top of his head."

 :D :D :D
What a joke you are.
I've been arguing exactly this for page after page and you have argued against it all the way.
Now I've pointed out the witnesses you put forward for your "Invisible Blowout"  BS: are actually describing a far more extensive wound you suddenly change tune. As if it was a misunderstanding on my part!!

You can't make out the massive crater in the top of JFK's head because the Z-film is too blurry, but you can see that his head has expanded like a balloon??
The autopsy pics are fake (maybe) because one of them doesn't show a blowout hole at the back.
The Z-film is fake (maybe) because some of your Tinfoil buddies saw a unicorn in it.
And on and on...any stupid argument to undermine the interpretation I was putting forward - that the injury to JFK's head involved nearly all the top right side of JFK's skull.

Show one place where you've argued for an injury that included the top of JFK's head.

Because I understand how your little Tinfoil mind works I know what you're problem is.
Sibert and O'Neill report overhearing mention of surgery to the head.
Jenkins reports a jagged fracture in the scalp of "rents and tears" joined together by small incisions.
You put 2 and 2 together and come up with Conspiracy. JFK's head was surgically altered before it got to Bethesda  ???

But the Z-film clearly shows that the massive flap of scalp and skull that Jenkins saw open up after taking the towels off JFK's head, was already blown off to one side at the moment of impact, revealing a massive crater in the top of JFK's head where parts of the skull had been blown away and parts were still connected to the blown away scalp.

(https://i.postimg.cc/W48CDMtv/Z337-trunk-of-Limo-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

This means the large flap of scalp wasn't the result of some kind of dodgy surgical procedure, as Jenkins and yourself assume, it was present at the moment of impact.

Can you see the crater in the top of the head yet?

(https://i.postimg.cc/X7CS38bc/Z328-trunk-of-Limo-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 21, 2022, 12:22:32 PM
"It has always been beyond obvious that Kennedy's wound was at the top of his head."

 :D :D :D
What a joke you are.
I've been arguing exactly this for page after page and you have argued against it all the way.
Now I've pointed out the witnesses you put forward for your "Invisible Blowout"  BS: are actually describing a far more extensive wound you suddenly change tune. As if it was a misunderstanding on my part!!


Covering up your ignorance by aggressiveness and insults? Pathetic. It clearly was a misunderstanding on your part and you have not pointed out anything of the kind.

Quote
You can't make out the massive crater in the top of JFK's head because the Z-film is too blurry, but you can see that his head has expanded like a balloon??
The autopsy pics are fake (maybe) because one of them doesn't show a blowout hole at the back.
The Z-film is fake (maybe) because some of your Tinfoil buddies saw a unicorn in it.
And on and on...any stupid argument to undermine the interpretation I was putting forward - that the injury to JFK's head involved nearly all the top right side of JFK's skull.

Show one place where you've argued for an injury that included the top of JFK's head.


Show one place where you've argued for an injury that included the top of JFK's head.

Why don't you show where I have argued that there wasn't an injury to the top of the head?

Quote
Because I understand how your little Tinfoil mind works I know what you're problem is.
Sibert and O'Neill report overhearing mention of surgery to the head.
Jenkins reports a jagged fracture in the scalp of "rents and tears" joined together by small incisions.
You put 2 and 2 together and come up with Conspiracy. JFK's head was surgically altered before it got to Bethesda  ???

Because I understand how your little Tinfoil mind works I know what you're problem is.

No, you don't understand how my mind works, because you are way too superficial for that, nor do you know what my problem is, because I haven't got one. What is the deal with LN freaks like you who somehow think they can read people's minds?

Quote
But the Z-film clearly shows that the massive flap of scalp and skull that Jenkins saw open up after taking the towels off JFK's head, was already blown off to one side at the moment of impact, revealing a massive crater in the top of JFK's head where parts of the skull had been blown away and parts were still connected to the blown away scalp.

This means the large flap of scalp wasn't the result of some kind of dodgy surgical procedure, as Jenkins and yourself assume, it was present at the moment of impact.

Can you see the crater in the top of the head yet?


the large flap of scalp wasn't the result of some kind of dodgy surgical procedure, as Jenkins and yourself assume

What makes you think I assume that?

Can you see the crater in the top of the head yet?

No, as I said before, I see an explosion, not a crater.

Don't bother to reply anymore as I have no intention to continue a coversation with a fanatical ego-driven aggressive obsessive who is utterly incapable of having a normal conversation.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Steve Barber on March 21, 2022, 10:06:43 PM
Yep an example again of what I brought up yesterday. A nutter going ballistic because someone else here dares to not agree with them about something.

 I've yet to see you--a conspiracy nut--post anything but tripe in here.  Nothing but troll drivel. You conspiracy nuts have a habit of bringing about the worst in people--and yes--everyone has a part in them that's their worst!   
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 21, 2022, 10:27:28 PM
I've yet to see you--a conspiracy nut--post anything but tripe in here.  Nothing but troll drivel. You conspiracy nuts have a habit of bringing about the worst in people--and yes--everyone has a part in them that's their worst!

I've yet to see you--a conspiracy nut--post anything but tripe in here.

And I don't think you ever will see that, because it's an impossibility as just about every LN will automatically dismiss anything that does not match their narrative as "tripe".

You conspiracy nuts have a habit of bringing about the worst in people

It clearly has brought out the worst in you, that's for sure
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 22, 2022, 04:15:24 AM
 
Huh? Pay attention!
I have already posted a stack of evidence in this very thread and you haven't even begun to refute 1 shred of it, you Mongo, being an "Engineer" who by definition must possess some semblance of an empirical mind, how about you tell me why I'm wrong, then if I consider your reply scientific and coherent then I'll consider responding. But until then you're just another angry CT who is just so goddamn mad that he can't think straight, don't worry, I see it all the time just look at Roger having another hissy fit. LMFAOYFD!

JohnM
Look who's talking. It's .... not Mongo and you knew it. Hissy fits are usually directed toward the female gender [another insult] Anger ascribed to the the almighty might be a forum violation. Looks like it is John Mytton who has become rattled.
No one can refute the fact that JFK was leaning forward when his head exploded and that in that collage of witnesses... a few [Sitzman, Newman, Zapruder, Humes] showing this shot... are holding their hands up to their eye or the side of the head....

(https://i.postimg.cc/wMvv33Rt/alotofevidencek-zps98fb39dc.jpg)
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 27, 2022, 07:48:36 PM
"It has always been beyond obvious that Kennedy's wound was at the top of his head."

 :D :D :D
What a joke you are.
I've been arguing exactly this for page after page and you have argued against it all the way.
Now I've pointed out the witnesses you put forward for your "Invisible Blowout"  BS: are actually describing a far more extensive wound you suddenly change tune. As if it was a misunderstanding on my part!!

You can't make out the massive crater in the top of JFK's head because the Z-film is too blurry, but you can see that his head has expanded like a balloon??
The autopsy pics are fake (maybe) because one of them doesn't show a blowout hole at the back.
The Z-film is fake (maybe) because some of your Tinfoil buddies saw a unicorn in it.
And on and on...any stupid argument to undermine the interpretation I was putting forward - that the injury to JFK's head involved nearly all the top right side of JFK's skull.

Show one place where you've argued for an injury that included the top of JFK's head.

Because I understand how your little Tinfoil mind works I know what you're problem is.
Sibert and O'Neill report overhearing mention of surgery to the head.
Jenkins reports a jagged fracture in the scalp of "rents and tears" joined together by small incisions.
You put 2 and 2 together and come up with Conspiracy. JFK's head was surgically altered before it got to Bethesda  ???

But the Z-film clearly shows that the massive flap of scalp and skull that Jenkins saw open up after taking the towels off JFK's head, was already blown off to one side at the moment of impact, revealing a massive crater in the top of JFK's head where parts of the skull had been blown away and parts were still connected to the blown away scalp.

(https://i.postimg.cc/W48CDMtv/Z337-trunk-of-Limo-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

This means the large flap of scalp wasn't the result of some kind of dodgy surgical procedure, as Jenkins and yourself assume, it was present at the moment of impact.

Can you see the crater in the top of the head yet?

(https://i.postimg.cc/X7CS38bc/Z328-trunk-of-Limo-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Too bad your assumptions invalidate all your conclusions. Like Mytton you believe your lying eyes prove your case, but you're quoting the bible to prove god exists.

Your first mistake is you assume a FMJ bullet can do the damage shown in the above Z frames, blowing the top of JFK's head off sending skull fragments and brain matter everywhere. But you claim there was definitely no occipital blowout because the Z film says so. Ok, but only a frangible bullet can do that much damage to your head, which explains the blow out at JFK's right temple and the ejection of skull fragments and brain matter away from the head. This was not a shot from behind since there is no trajectory into the back of JFK's head and out his right temple, otherwise, why would he have a right temple blowout? Jet effect? BS. A FMJ bullet cannot create the same jet effect as an explosion, which includes moving the head back and to the left. The slight forward motion doesn't rise above camera shake or reflex, but it was possible a 3rd shot came from behind and into JFK's back, just not out his throat.

A FMJ bullet typically enters the head thru a small hole and exits with a fist sized blowout. Just like the frontal shot that entered at JFK's hairline and blew his scalp backward and created a fist sized gapping hole at the back of his head where it exited. This is the wound that the hospital personnel saw. The entry wound was removed surgically post mortem. Maybe you and Mytton can explain that one. The back-of-the-head autopsy photo is BS, unless you can explain his haircut. And if the Z film was edited you can assume that the autopsy photos were too. Otherwise, your claim that the occipital blowout doesn't exist because we don't see it on the Z film is a fallacy and based on a false assumption. There is no evidence that any shots came from behind and exploded in JFK's head and if anything, the testimonials are strong evidence that the Z film and autopsy photos have been tampered with.

Myttons top-o-head autopsy gif of JFK shows the center of the explosion from the frangible bullet just inside the right temple. Note what appears to be scorched brain matter around that point and how the explosive force split the skull flaps away from the entry point of the bullet at the temple and blew out a large portion of the brain from the top of the head. A FMJ bullet would not do this. Only a frangible bullet could have caused this much damage. The blowout at the occipital was caused from a near simultaneous shot from the front that entered JFK's head at the hairline. Based on the tilt of his head at Z312, just before the shot(s) and extending a line thru the exit and entry wounds, the shot appears to have come from the overpass nearest to the railroad tracks. James Files claimed that he and another shooter took near simultaneous shots and he used a Fireball hybrid handgun that shot frangible bullets. He took his shot from the knoll and it entered the right temple, then exploded, which is why it didn't exit and strike Jackie. Files claimed that the turkeyshoot point was even marked on the pavement and it was intended to make several shots appear to sound like 1 shot with echoes. The mark was coincidentally the exact spot where Greer inexplicably slowed the limo down to.

You assume the Z film has not been edited, when in fact it definitely has been. When I put together a 3D stabilized version 7 years ago to analyze the camera shake, I noted splices that were not from stopping and restarting the camera.

(You need Red/Blue anaglyph glasses to see the 3D)

The problem is Zapruder didn't recall ever stopping the filming once JFK's limo came into view. Also, there are no lead-in frames when you stop and start the camera. These were splices that the FBI claimed someone had broken the film and merely repaired it, by removing the entire section where the limo came to a near stop rounding onto Elm, where Oswald had JFK dead in his sights, motionless and a mere 60 feet below him. Ask yourself why he didn't take the shot then? Instead he waited for a more difficult shot using his wonky scope. Something must have happened at that point for the FBI to scrub it out.

And if there was a concerted effort to "scrub" the film before returning a COPY back to Z, then you can assume their agenda was to assert the LN narrative and make sure the images confirmed all shots came from the TSBD. That meant the gapping hole in the back of JFK's head had to go. Darkening a lighter contrasted area is the easiest possible undetectable edit you can do on a film. You just have to make a copy of the edited film and keep the original. This is what an optical printer was used for at the time for movie editing. So where is the original Z film and why did the FBI keep it and stash it away or destroy/lose it? If they did edit the film, then their objective was to scrub it of conspiracy, return a copy of it and destroy/lose the original. I assume that's what they did. Those frames of JFK's head exploding look grossly distorted/edited to me. But without the original, we will never know. We certainly can't assume that it hasn't been edited and claim the hospital staff were delusional, based on your gullibility.

You assume all the shots came from the TSBD but I doubt any of them did. Maybe some token shots were taken with the Mauser since the MC was already stashed away. However, in the case of the magic bullet, there just isn't a valid trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD into JFK's back and out his neck. Just ask Mytton. I guarantee he's tried to make the trajectory work using lasers, but it just doesn't, so he clams up about it and moves on to other fallacies and acts like he's proven something. ;D

If I can assume Oswald could not have shot the magic bullet then he was not a LN. And if LHO was not a LN then he must have been a patsy, whether he took any shots or not. And if he was a patsy, then this was a conspiracy and the conspirators were not relying on Oswald to do the job alone. And if this was a conspiracy then Hoover's FBI must have been involved. Which means Fritz & the DPD were involved. Why the DPD? Because they were in charge of editing films and photos and sheep dipping Oswald with the back yard photos and possibly editing the autopsy photos and even the Z film. Roscoe White was into dark room creations and even film editing at the time. He even had a back yard photo in his possession. It made sense to stick with 1 group for all your sheep dipping and evidence scrubbing needs.

Prove me wrong.
JT
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 27, 2022, 09:36:26 PM
What do you think happened at the turn onto Elm Jack?

I think the limo almost curbed out turning onto Elm because it was such a tight turn and they probably had to avoid hitting pedestrians. Looks pretty suspicious detouring the limo down a side street and serving JFK up on a silver platter to get assassinated. Makes you look like you planned the route that way.

Maybe the guys on the 6th floor taking the shots were concerned that it would look too much like a setup and they wouldn't have time to vacate the building. Also, any cop near the TSBD would have caught Oswald before he even sat down with his coke in the lunchroom. They needed time to set him up. But even then it wasn't enough time for him to have taken the shots, wiped all his prints off the rifle and ditched it amongst the boxes, ran downstairs and into the lunchroom and bought his coke, all in 90 secs. I suspect that's why they didn't take the shot then. As far as the missing section of film goes, maybe the film caught another signaller like umbrella man. Who knows?

Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 28, 2022, 02:23:25 AM
Too bad your assumptions invalidate all your conclusions. Like Mytton you believe your lying eyes prove your case, but you're quoting the bible to prove god exists.

Your first mistake is you assume a FMJ bullet can do the damage shown in the above Z frames, blowing the top of JFK's head off sending skull fragments and brain matter everywhere. But you claim there was definitely no occipital blowout because the Z film says so. Ok, but only a frangible bullet can do that much damage to your head, which explains the blow out at JFK's right temple and the ejection of skull fragments and brain matter away from the head. This was not a shot from behind since there is no trajectory into the back of JFK's head and out his right temple, otherwise, why would he have a right temple blowout? Jet effect? BS. A FMJ bullet cannot create the same jet effect as an explosion, which includes moving the head back and to the left. The slight forward motion doesn't rise above camera shake or reflex, but it was possible a 3rd shot came from behind and into JFK's back, just not out his throat.

A FMJ bullet typically enters the head thru a small hole and exits with a fist sized blowout. Just like the frontal shot that entered at JFK's hairline and blew his scalp backward and created a fist sized gapping hole at the back of his head where it exited. This is the wound that the hospital personnel saw. The entry wound was removed surgically post mortem. Maybe you and Mytton can explain that one. The back-of-the-head autopsy photo is BS, unless you can explain his haircut. And if the Z film was edited you can assume that the autopsy photos were too. Otherwise, your claim that the occipital blowout doesn't exist because we don't see it on the Z film is a fallacy and based on a false assumption. There is no evidence that any shots came from behind and exploded in JFK's head and if anything, the testimonials are strong evidence that the Z film and autopsy photos have been tampered with.

Myttons top-o-head autopsy gif of JFK shows the center of the explosion from the frangible bullet just inside the right temple. Note what appears to be scorched brain matter around that point and how the explosive force split the skull flaps away from the entry point of the bullet at the temple and blew out a large portion of the brain from the top of the head. A FMJ bullet would not do this. Only a frangible bullet could have caused this much damage. The blowout at the occipital was caused from a near simultaneous shot from the front that entered JFK's head at the hairline. Based on the tilt of his head at Z312, just before the shot(s) and extending a line thru the exit and entry wounds, the shot appears to have come from the overpass nearest to the railroad tracks. James Files claimed that he and another shooter took near simultaneous shots and he used a Fireball hybrid handgun that shot frangible bullets. He took his shot from the knoll and it entered the right temple, then exploded, which is why it didn't exit and strike Jackie. Files claimed that the turkeyshoot point was even marked on the pavement and it was intended to make several shots appear to sound like 1 shot with echoes. The mark was coincidentally the exact spot where Greer inexplicably slowed the limo down to.

You assume the Z film has not been edited, when in fact it definitely has been. When I put together a 3D stabilized version 7 years ago to analyze the camera shake, I noted splices that were not from stopping and restarting the camera.

(You need Red/Blue anaglyph glasses to see the 3D)

The problem is Zapruder didn't recall ever stopping the filming once JFK's limo came into view. Also, there are no lead-in frames when you stop and start the camera. These were splices that the FBI claimed someone had broken the film and merely repaired it, by removing the entire section where the limo came to a near stop rounding onto Elm, where Oswald had JFK dead in his sights, motionless and a mere 60 feet below him. Ask yourself why he didn't take the shot then? Instead he waited for a more difficult shot using his wonky scope. Something must have happened at that point for the FBI to scrub it out.

And if there was a concerted effort to "scrub" the film before returning a COPY back to Z, then you can assume their agenda was to assert the LN narrative and make sure the images confirmed all shots came from the TSBD. That meant the gapping hole in the back of JFK's head had to go. Darkening a lighter contrasted area is the easiest possible undetectable edit you can do on a film. You just have to make a copy of the edited film and keep the original. This is what an optical printer was used for at the time for movie editing. So where is the original Z film and why did the FBI keep it and stash it away or destroy/lose it? If they did edit the film, then their objective was to scrub it of conspiracy, return a copy of it and destroy/lose the original. I assume that's what they did. Those frames of JFK's head exploding look grossly distorted/edited to me. But without the original, we will never know. We certainly can't assume that it hasn't been edited and claim the hospital staff were delusional, based on your gullibility.

You assume all the shots came from the TSBD but I doubt any of them did. Maybe some token shots were taken with the Mauser since the MC was already stashed away. However, in the case of the magic bullet, there just isn't a valid trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD into JFK's back and out his neck. Just ask Mytton. I guarantee he's tried to make the trajectory work using lasers, but it just doesn't, so he clams up about it and moves on to other fallacies and acts like he's proven something. ;D

If I can assume Oswald could not have shot the magic bullet then he was not a LN. And if LHO was not a LN then he must have been a patsy, whether he took any shots or not. And if he was a patsy, then this was a conspiracy and the conspirators were not relying on Oswald to do the job alone. And if this was a conspiracy then Hoover's FBI must have been involved. Which means Fritz & the DPD were involved. Why the DPD? Because they were in charge of editing films and photos and sheep dipping Oswald with the back yard photos and possibly editing the autopsy photos and even the Z film. Roscoe White was into dark room creations and even film editing at the time. He even had a back yard photo in his possession. It made sense to stick with 1 group for all your sheep dipping and evidence scrubbing needs.

Prove me wrong.
JT

What a gem of a post this is.
To imagine you are not the one who is gullible is laughable. You swallow down every piece of Tinfoil  BS: you can get your hands on and regurgitate it in this beauty of a post - the Z-film is fake, the autopsy photos are fake, a shot from the overpass, James Files and on and on.
As for the Z-film, the Zavada Report [which can be accessed here - http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Zavada/zreport.htm] ends all buffoonery about the authenticity of the Z-film. It demonstrates the original Z-film is unaltered, and so disappears nearly all of your nonsense with it. Almost every point you make relies on the Z-film being faked. The Zavada Report blows everything you believe out of the water. If you are really interested in what actually happened that day read the report [like that's going to happen].

While you're at it get yourself a copy of the Towner film and let us all know when this moment the limo almost stopped during the turn off Houston occurred.

Just to highlight the full extent of your stupidity - you claim the blowout hole in the back of JFK's head is altered to hide any evidence of a shot from the front [I'll ignore that you avoid talking about all the material that is supposed to be blown out of the back of his head and how this was "scrubbed out"], yet the "back and to the left" motion is left in by the fakers! Do you see the stupidity of the point you're making?

There are so many other things wrong with your post it would need a new thread to go through it all.
It is you who is gullible, don't ever forget that.


Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 28, 2022, 12:09:22 PM
Your older posts (several years back) seem to have been written by a person genuinely looking for the facts in this weird case. Something happened since then and you just seem paranoid in all your recent posts. Shame that your recent posts should just be ignored- you offer nothing!

And you are a Tinfoil nobody.
You don't have the slightest interest in what actually happened that day, the more outlandish the  BS: the better.
But seeing as you've taken up the challenge on behalf of Jack:

Where in the Towner film does the limo stop?
If the blowout at the back of the head is altered in the Z-film why is the "back and to the left" motion left in?
What greater authority on the authenticity of the Z-film is there, other than Zavada?
Can you see the crater in the top of the head yet?

(https://i.postimg.cc/X7CS38bc/Z328-trunk-of-Limo-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

This will be the third time you've ducked this question Mr Integrity.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Steve Barber on March 28, 2022, 07:35:02 PM
:D
What would you know about integrity?

  Well?  See!  You just ducked it again!

  If the back of the head was "altered" as you say, Mrs. Kennedy's hand wouldn't be in the frames in that area either.  Her hand is moving right on top the area that you claim is altered. Furthermore, since you guys cherry pick the things you gather as "proof", if there was a wound on the back of the head, Bobby Hargis would have seen it.  He said this himself.  All he saw was a "splash on the right side of his (JFK's) head". 
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 28, 2022, 08:51:35 PM
:D
What would you know about integrity?

Ducked again, for a third time, how heroic.
As with all Tinfoil Merchants, any difficult questions are treated as if they don't exist because you are in denial.
Let's try again:

Where in the Towner film does the limo stop?
If the blowout at the back of the head is altered in the Z-film why is the "back and to the left" motion left in?
What greater authority on the authenticity of the Z-film is there, other than Zavada?
Can you see the crater in the top of the head yet?


Four simple questions.
You believe you're all over this so let's hear what you have to say.

Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 28, 2022, 09:33:01 PM
You have me confused with somebody else, I never claimed the Z-film was altered. That doesn't mean it wasn't altered, but I have never said that it was.

Good luck finding whomever it is you really want to harass about this, I hope it brings you some peace.

Just to clear up your confusion - the Z-film wasn't altered, read the Zavada report.
The problem for you is that the Z-film doesn't show the blowout at the back of the head you truly believe in.
How can that be?
[hint - there wasn't a blowout at the back of JFK's head]
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 29, 2022, 10:06:17 AM
You believe the headshot came from the GK.
That's why you need the blowout at the back of the head.
But now that's been taken away, so we're onto frangible ammunition.
If a frangible bullet hit JFK in the temple from the front, his scalp/skull would've been blown to the back of his head and would've been hanging down behind his ear.
But that is not what is shown in the Z-film. The large flap of scalp, with bone still attached, can be seen hanging down in front of his ear:

(https://i.postimg.cc/W48CDMtv/Z337-trunk-of-Limo-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

In the above pic, (for most honest people) JFK's ear is clearly visible next to the large piece of bone connected to the inside of the part of the scalp that has been blown down to the side. In his interview, Jenkins describes the large head wound as scalp and skull opening away from the side of JFK's head. The impression he gives is of a large, hinged flap of scalp that could hang down by the right side of the head. This large flap of scalp is visible in the Z-film hanging down by the side of JFK's head.
In the clip below pay particular attention to the large, pendulous strip of scalp that seems to sway forwards as JFK begins to collapse forwards:

(https://i.postimg.cc/RFV4RpQQ/Head-Shot-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

This large portion of scalp is picked out by the yellow arrow in the frame below:

(https://i.postimg.cc/VvHSGqkQ/z330-2-a.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

It makes sense that this portion of scalp would have been blown down behind the ear if a frangible bullet, fired from the GK, hit JFK in the temple area.

The wound to JFK's head is most probably a tangential gunshot wound. Pat Speer deals with this in immense detail at his website [chapters 16b and 16c] patspeer.com
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 29, 2022, 06:12:20 PM
When I first started looking into this case the only thing I knew for certain was that there was a head-shot from the GK. I was absolutely baffled that there could be any argument against a conspiracy - someone firing from the GK = Conspiracy. End of story.
It is almost impossible to get away from the "back and to the left" motion. It is surely unequivocal physical evidence that the head-shot came from the front. I would wager this one specific motion is the cornerstone of nearly all conspiratorial thinking.
Then I came across the discovery that JFK's first head movement at the moment of impact was forward.
Not for one second did this dispel my conviction that a head-shot came from the GK. The "back and to the left" motion proved this was the case. The best explanation was that a shot came from behind a fraction of a second before the frontal head-shot - this explained the initial forward movement and followed by the B2L movement. And when I looked there seemed to be plenty of evidence to support this point of view.

That is a feature of this case - whatever "angle" a person believes in, there is evidence present that will support that point of view.

Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 09, 2022, 11:08:09 PM
"Mytton" has made a lot of ridiculous assertions over the years, but "neck creases are like fingerprints"?

 :D
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2022, 12:04:30 AM
That is a feature of this case - whatever "angle" a person believes in, there is evidence present that will support that point of view.

That's probably the most astute thing you've said in this entire thread.

And yet you chide people for not inventing an "angle" of their own.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on April 10, 2022, 12:05:41 AM
"Mytton" has made a lot of ridiculous assertions over the years, but "neck creases are like fingerprints"?

 :D

(https://i.ibb.co/HzRzyLd/HSCA-neck-wrinkles.jpg)
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M4_Authenticity.pdf

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 12, 2022, 06:15:45 AM
Nope.  Nothing in there about them being "like fingerprints".  That was a typical "Mytton" exaggeration.

"Virtually unique".  LOL.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on April 12, 2022, 07:27:49 AM
Nope.  Nothing in there about them being "like fingerprints".  That was a typical "Mytton" exaggeration.

"Virtually unique".  LOL.

When you can prove to me that everyone on the planet has unique fingerprints, then you may have a point, but until then we can only assume that fingerprints are "virtually unique".

JohnM




Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on April 12, 2022, 08:23:38 AM
When you can prove to me that everyone on the planet has unique fingerprints, then you may have a point, but until then we can only assume that fingerprints are "virtually unique".

JohnM

Keep on assuming... it's about all you do.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 18, 2022, 09:07:14 AM


Therefore, O'Connor's ridiculous assertion that the entire brain (save a few small "bits and pieces") was gone is reason enough right there, in my opinion, to pretty much dismiss everything else he had to say about President John F. Kennedy's autopsy."
 
Another glaring Mytton nutsack attack against a witness who was there and didn't roll with the flow of the cover up.
The brain is missing. This is a fact. This was reported and has been ignored for over 50 years. Looks like it was gone from the very beginning as the witness stated.
Quote
John F Kennedy: could his brain hold clues to his murder? Unless it's found again, we may never know.   
Mon 21 Oct 2013 12.00 EDT

Who stole JFK's brain? It has been a mystery since 1966 when, three years after the president's assassination, it was discovered that his brain, which had been removed during the autopsy and stored in the National Archives, had gone missing. Conspiracy theorists have long suggested the missing organ would have proved Kennedy was not shot from the back by Lee Harvey Oswald, but from the front.

The latest theory puts forward a less juicy cover-up – James Swanson, author of a new book on the assassination of Kennedy, suggests the president's brain was taken by his younger brother Robert, "perhaps to conceal evidence of the true extent of President Kennedy's illnesses, or perhaps to conceal evidence of the number of medications that President Kennedy was taking".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/oct/21/presidents-brain-missing-mislaid-body-parts
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: John Mytton on April 18, 2022, 11:14:41 AM
Another glaring Mytton nutsack attack against a witness who was there and didn't roll with the flow of the cover up.
The brain is missing. This is a fact. This was reported and has been ignored for over 50 years. Looks like it was gone from the very beginning as the witness stated. https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/oct/21/presidents-brain-missing-mislaid-body-parts

Huh? You support O'Connor, then supply evidence "it was discovered that his brain, which had been removed during the autopsy" that totally discredits him! Classic! You are just about the dumbest Member here, you keep misrepresenting me, make stupid accusations and abuse me at every opportunity and every effort is as feeble as this, don't give up your day job.

JohnM
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Dan O'meara on June 27, 2022, 02:10:15 AM
Gerry Down has started a thread entitled "The physics of "back and to the left" in which he presents an argument that a bullet passing through JFK's head would not have caused much movement.
I would urge readers to look through this thread to get an idea of the massive forces that blew JFK's head apart sending pieces of skull flying in all directions. The idea that this massive force applied to JFK's head would have resulted in little movement of his head is utterly ludicrous.
Title: Re: Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.
Post by: Walt Cakebread on June 27, 2022, 04:00:40 AM
Gerry Down has started a thread entitled "The physics of "back and to the left" in which he presents an argument that a bullet passing through JFK's head would not have caused much movement.
I would urge readers to look through this thread to get an idea of the massive forces that blew JFK's head apart sending pieces of skull flying in all directions.The idea that this massive force applied to JFK's head would have resulted in little movement of his head is utterly ludicrous.

The idea that this massive force applied to JFK's head would have resulted in little movement of his head is utterly ludicrous.

That's exactly right.... And I might add .....No 6.5mm  FMJ bullet would cause the massive damage, nor would that 6.5mm bullet throw a 200 pound man like he'd been struck by a bowling ball.  A 6.5mm, 160 grain,  FMJ bullet at a velocity of 2000FPS would pass right through with little transfer of energy .