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

[Dan O'meara]

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]

[Dan O'meara]

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:



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:



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



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

[Dan O'meara]

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.

[John Iacoletti]

"Mytton" has made a lot of ridiculous assertions over the years, but "neck creases are like fingerprints"?

 

[John Iacoletti]

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.

[John Mytton]

"Mytton" has made a lot of ridiculous assertions over the years, but "neck creases are like fingerprints"?

 

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M4_Authenticity.pdf

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Nope.  Nothing in there about them being "like fingerprints".  That was a typical "Mytton" exaggeration.

"Virtually unique".  LOL.

[John Mytton]

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