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

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

"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.



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



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



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:



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.



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.

"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:



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



This is not a conclusion - it is an observation.

Thank you for sharing your "observations".

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?

Where do I rule out that possibility or is this just more snide  [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. 

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:



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.

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

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.

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?

[Dan O'meara]

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 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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? 
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.

[Martin Weidmann]

Well done, you seem to have grasped the difference between observations and conclusions 
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.

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

More word games? Why all the distractions?

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?

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....

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.

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. 

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..... 

"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?

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! 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I ran from your question? 
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?

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.

[Dan O'meara]

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. 

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! 

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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?