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

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

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" 

[Dan O'meara]

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.

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:



And this:



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



Does that help?
Can you see it now?

Of course you can't 

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?

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,"

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

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".

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.

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."

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?

[Martin Weidmann]

"...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!

"...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.

"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?

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



And this:



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



Does that help?
Can you see it now?

Of course you can't 

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.

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?

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

  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?

"...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!

"...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.

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?

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.

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.

[Dan O'meara]

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:



And this?



or this?

we think you learned this game from the Warren Commission.

Candygram for ....!

[Dan O'meara]

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.... 

[Dan O'meara]

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.... 

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.