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

[Dan O'meara]

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.

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?

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.

[Dan O'meara]

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?



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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

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.

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?

[John Mytton]

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

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

[Dan O'meara]

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."

 
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"  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.



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?

[Martin Weidmann]

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

 
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"  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.

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?

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?

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.

[Steve Barber]

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!