Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.

[John Mytton]

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!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

JohnM

Your complete inability to make a coherent argument is exposing the pathetic weakness of your case.

[Dan O'meara]

JohnM

 

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.



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:



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?

[Dan O'meara]

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:



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.



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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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?

[Dan O'meara]

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.

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?

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

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?

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.



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?