All Activity

Doesn’t the AR-15 accident explain a lot of these shenanigans? Including the brain switch and 2 brain exams described by Horne? Cover up of the SS accident and other mistakes. More than just a shell game for security purposes… There was also a rumor about a helicopter landing on the roof at Bethesda, adding one more layer to the casket conundrum.

Pat Speer wrote: Mr. Speer, I would point out to you that your comment contradicts your usual mythology about James Jenkins -- that he is not a back of the head wound witness -- but you would just respond by saying that the video you posted is from 2018 after, according to you, William Law, Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser had prevailed upon Jenkins to change his story about the location of the large avulsive head wound being in the frontal quadrant of JFK's head as, according to you, Jenkins had placed it prior to that time. Given that James Jenkins had told the HSCA (and made a drawing for the HSCA) in 1977, and also told David Lifton in 1979 that the back of the head wound was in the right quadrant of the back of JFK's head (to Lifton, specifically occipital-parietal), your story that Jenkins had later started claiming it was instead in the frontal quandrant never made any sense to me, and caused me to suspect, like so many other things, that were just lying about this. As I'm sure you recall, I've repeatedly asked you where I can find the video from which you made the screenshots on your website to accompany your claims that Jenkins was demonstrating the large avulsive head wound to be on the top of JFK's head, and now I understand why you've repeatedly ignored my requests... Because I've located that video and have ascertained that your claims about James Jenkins changing his mind about the location of the head wound are fraudulent. I'll demonstrate what led me to conclude that your James Jenkins claims are fraudulent, as follows: The following is a screenshot of fraudulent misrepresentations you make on your website in which you claim that James Jenkins was handed a "mannequin head marked on the low back of the head" with which he disagreed by "insisting", according to you, "that scalp was attached to the bone" in the area marked on the model, and "that there was thereby no blow-out wound" in that area. The following is a video of the segment of the 1991 Dallas Conference of Medical Witnesses from which you have taken your screenshot and upon which you are basing your claims about the statements you allege that James Jenkins made: The topic of the discussion was the back of the head autopsy photograph, and James Jenkins was asked to explain from the perspective of the autopsists why the photograph does not depict the gaping back of the head wound that had been described by the Parkland doctors. James Jenkins responded that by the time the work of the pathologists was completed -- and skull fragments had been inserted into the wound -- there remained a "silver dollar" sized hole in the same place as the large avulsive wound in Dr. Robert McClelland's drawing "that still had bone and scalp missing." At this point Jenkins was asked to draw the wound he was describing on the mannequin head, and he did so. * Thus, it is a lie that Jenkins was disagreeing with a marking that was already on the mannequin head. * And it is a lie that Jenkins was, in any way, saying that there "was no blow out wound" in the area of the back of the head. Immediately following that segment on your website is the following in which you claim that James Jenkins next demonstrated the location of the large avulsive head wound by placing his hand "on the top right side of his head," going on to then describe the silver dollar sized hole was "after reconstruction." The following is a video of the segment of the 1991 Dallas Conference of Medical Witnesses from which you have taken your screenshot and upon which you are basing your claims about the statements you allege that James Jenkins made: Contrary to your claim that Jenkins had went on to describe the silver dollar sized hole, Jenkins had in truth went on to describe the large avulsive wound he saw at the beginning of the autopsy which he described as "an open gaping wound" approximately the "size of a closed fist" similar "to Dr. McClelland's drawing," except a little higher. Jenkins then went on to identify the F-8 autopsy "mystery" photo as being of "the massive cavity" that existed at the beginning of the autopsy. Then Harrison Livingston asked Jenkins to turn around and put his hand on his head to show "where that large hole was," and Jenkins turned his body entirely around in his chair to do so, placing it on the back of his head. Despite my best efforts with the technology available to me, I was unable to clean this photo up well enough to make it clear that Jenkins was indicating the back of his head, but you should be able to determine that watching it in the video starting at 1:57 ( https://youtu.be/UOtc56ga5Es?si=TLl6IbGw0bWeSKdu&t=117 ), additionally, as a matter of common sense, Jenkins would not have had to twist around in his chair like that if he was just going to touch the frontal part of the top of his head. Dr. McClelland was sitting on the other side of Harrison Livingstone, and Jenkins had referenced Dr. McClelland's drawing for the location of the "open gaping wound." * Thus, it is a lie that Jenkins was demonstrating the location of the large avulsive head wound by placing his hand "on the top right side of his head." * And it is a lie that Jenkins was at this point describing the silver dollar sized wound as it existed at the end of the autopsy rather than the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound. Speer, you can consider your fraudulent misrepresentations that James Jenkins was conned into moving the large avulsive wound to the back of the head by "alterationists" circa 2018 to now be officially dead. That was a con job, and you are now busted. I can barely believe that I distrusted my own instincts about you and about this to feel reluctant about James Jenkins's credibility and about posting his 2018 skull model wound drawing all the way up until now. And the following is the information about the 1991 Dallas Medical Witness Conference that Speer refused to provide to me (and now we know why ) Link to complete 'JFK Medical Witness Conference Part 1 (April 6th, 1991)' https://youtu.be/t_FY2loSOZY?si=afF4yPtWK5jusv_s An extremely rare, but important video discussion between eyewitnesses from Parkland Hospital, where JFK died and Bethesda Naval Hospital, where his autopsy was performed. This was the FIRST and only time these witnesses met each other and discussed their memories. It was filmed on April 6th, 1991, at the Stouffer Hotel in Dallas, Texas. It was hosted by Harrison Livingstone, author of High Treason 2. Which includes a transcript of key moments from this conference, in Chapter 14: https://archive.org/details/hightreason2grea0000livi/page/282/mode/2up

Oh, definitely cover up. One of their own (Hickey) accidentally shot JFK with the defective AR-15 that they routinely used. Very embarrassing. But I doubt very much that the SS was involved in the assassination beyond sloppy protection and failure to follow protocol. Not to mention being hung over after some heavy drinking the night before.

What in the world are you babbling about now? I didn't "lie" in any of those statements that you quoted. They are all correct statements and, moreover, they are perfectly consistent with each another. So what is your point? [--Awaiting six-mile-long explanation from K.H., which undoubtedly will feature no "point" at all.--]

Good collection of information on Hargis. I am of the view that the “first “ shot Hargis heard was about simultaneous with the Altgens 6 photo, and the he was actually hit with the skull fragment after the shot that occurred about 2.5 seconds prior to that, when the limo had just finished the turn onto Elm. If you look closely at Hargis right cheek in Altgens 6, you can actually see the fragment sticking to it. The limo had not yet passed Brehm’s or Moorman’s positions (you can see their shadows). Moorman, btw, thought her picture was simultaneous with the “first” shot, not the last one. Inattention blindness at work. In fact, I think her photo was simultaneous with the shot that got Connally, not Kennedy, and the Altgens 6 shot didn’t actually hit anyone in the car but was a warning shot from one of Johnson’s protective agents to warn Kennedy’s hungover protective agents to the danger.

Judge Postpones Trump’s Classified Documents Case Indefinitely (msn.com)

My three strikes and you're out for the Secret service comment relates to Vince Palamara's work, primary Survivors Guilt, other observances and Jim Gochenaur's experiences. Taken together it seems multiple levels of the SS might have had foreknowledge, some involved in the assassination and cover up. More detail coming.

Exactly!! As I showed in my earlier post, the vast majority of the Parkland doctors—those who were in a position to see the right way of the head where he was laying on the gurney—all described a BACK of the head blow-out. Salter, who couldn’t see that, described a temporal scalp laceration. Baxter described a temporal parietal bone flap. Only one (Girsecke, who apparently mixed up right and left and was admittedly only present for a short time) said that anything was “missing” in this frontal area near the brow line. I think this is McClelland’s attempt to explain the mismatch between what he saw and what the picture shows, an awareness that 2D images are not 3D images and an attempt to explain without getting into “alterationist” territory, but I am of of the view that the images were deliberately altered, given failure of back of the head images to pass the stereoscopic test and accounts by the Knudsen family, etc. Similarly, the X-rays were also altered, as Mantik (supported by Chesser) goes into great detail to explain. I myself discovered that the “computer enhanced” “right” lateral X-ray is a composite of the HSCA published image (the “original”—although still containing the “white patch”—only described as “lateral” without specifying right or left in the HSCA documents [I believe it is the LEFT lateral], but captioned as showing the “occipital” blow-out) is a composite made with the “living” right lateral X-ray and presented as the “right lateral” X-ray that was “computer enhanced.” See https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/hsca-published-x-rays.html

Adam Walinksy in 2016 supported Trump for President, stating the D-Party had become too wedded to war. In today's media environment, that was to kiss of death for Walinsky. In some blue circles, it is OK to support the depraved atrocities of Hamas, but not Trump. The red side is no better.

Found this image in a post by Jack White on the EF in 2010. Douglas Horne discusses frame 317 in his book Inside the ARRB. The "shadow" looks unnatural in relation to the brown colored hair at the top of JFK's scalp. I know this has probably been discussed to death.

As I said before I never met Harlan Carter. Charley and I were both writers for a number of gun magazines. I never discussed JFK because Charly was an egomaniac and a murder! I was a Detroit copper whose assignment included SWAT and Homicide. I knew Charly when he was in southwest Asia and later. He was a most disagreeable person

This is startling. I just found out about this today from Talbot. I had not seen any notice of his passing in any MSM outlet. He was a really important part of RFK's staff and his 1968 campaign. . and a key source for Talbot's book Brothers. I wonder if the MSM does not want to pen anything since it would likely violate their negative tsunami pledge to smear RFK Jr? Anyway here is Talbot on Adam. https://www.thedavidtalbotshow.com/blog/adam-walinsky-restless-in-peace

McGeorge Bundy was at the Situation Room. Averell Harriman was at the Foggy Bottom headquarters of the State Department. Max Holland's The Assassination Tapes, pg 57: <quote on> At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association. </q> The US governments "top Kremlinologists" were Llewellyn Thompson, Charles Bohlen, George Kennan and Harriman himself. There was no consultation between them that day. There's no record of contact between Harriman and the generals. According to Craig Roberts and Jim Bishop, it was McGeorge Bundy who claimed to have spoken to Johnson on AF1.

I've seen at least one more photo with caption "November 26" but what obviously taken on 11/22.

No problem. I am skeptical of any use of uniformed police officers in marked cars being used for a getaway. Cops in police cars always invite attention, exactly what you would NOT want in such a situation.

Are you referring to the article by Doug Horne? "The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration" by Douglas P. Horne https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ If so, I agree with you: Next to the Zapruder film chapter in Volume IV of Doug Horne's book, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, I think that the online essay linked above is the best and most comprehensive tutorial on the Zapruder film that exists. From the available testimony of CIA NPIC officials Homer McMahon and Dino Brugioni, it would appear that Hawkeyeworks in Rochester, New Your, was a highly classified joint CIA/Kodak film lab that was, in addition to NPIC, in possession of the camera-original Zapruder film on the weekend of the assassination, and all but a few documents from the second briefing board session at NPIC remain classified. I don't know why this would still be the case after all of these years other than that something highly nefarious took place, namely, alteration of the Zapruder film. When Homer McMahon was interviewed by the ARRB in 1996, and divulged the name of the facility, "Hawkeyeworks," the CIA immediately informed the ARRB that even the name of the facility itself was classified. The following is a memo from Doug Horne memorializing that communication: For me, it is the alterations in the Zapruder film itself that are the surest indications that it was modified that weekend (we know it happened that weekend because the same alterations are present in the NPIC briefing boards made on November 24, 1963, and in the Zapruder film stills that were published in the November 29, 1963 assassination edition of LIFE magazine). In particular, the headshot sequence scenes depict damage to JFK's head that was not reported by any of the Parkland Hospital and Bethesda autopsy witnesses, and which is not present in the autopsy photographs; namely, a cavernous hole in the President's forehead, that is approximately the size of a cantaloupe, as we can see in the following stills from the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" digital copy of the "original" Zapruder film which are highlighted to make the forehead crater clearer to the naked eye: That wound is somehow -- perhaps magically? -- missing from the autopsy photographs: The closest witness to the head wound, Jackie Kennedy, of course described to the Warren Commission a wound completely different than what we are seeing in those Zapruder stills above: "I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing -- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...." In the Zapruder film we can see Jackie feel the margins of the back of the head wound that she later described to the Warren Commission (and which roughly twenty Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses reported), just before she went out onto the trunk to retrieve a piece of brain that had been blown out of the back of her husband's head that she would turn over to Dr. Marion Jenkins upon her arrival at the hospital: Notice above that what Jackie Kennedy appears to be feeling with her white gloved hand has the appearance of a large black blob instead of a bloody blow out wound. Zapruder film authenticity apologists of the variety that admit the existence of the large avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head generally claim that we are not seeing the blood, brain and skull we should be seeing because "Zapruder's camera just couldn't pick up such details"; but note that in the same footage WE ARE seeing Jackie's red roses, so WE SHOULD also be seeing the blood, brain and skull associated with that wound. So what is the deal with that black blob that appears where the occipital-parietal wound should be? It is most clearly seen in frame 317 of Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead's 6K scans of the Forensic Copy of the "original" Zapruder film that they purchased from the National Archives in 2009, in which we more clearly see that the black blob is a hexagon shaped D-max black patch with sharp edges that has been inserted over the occipital-parietal wound, and is definitely not the "natural shadow" that Zapruder film authenticity apologists claim that it is: And when we look at the clearest Zapruder film stills from the headshot sequence that follow Z-313 (the frame of the headshot) also from Wilkinson and Whitehead's 6k scans, we see that same black patch covering the back of the head wound morphing in shape from frame to frame: What would professional cinematographers who are familiar with the special effects of 1960 era films think of this? We don't have to wonder, because Sidney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead have already solicited opinions from some of them, and the following is what they had to say: https://www.fff.org/2023/08/16/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-4/ "...I’m going to present one last piece of evidence to complete my case. That evidence consists of expert testimony from three witnesses — Paul Rutan, Jr., Garrett Smith, and Dr. Roderick Ryan. In my book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, I include a partial transcript of an interview of Rutan and Smith, both of whom closely examined a high-quality copy of the extant Zapruder film — that is, the film that is in the National Archives that is purported to be the original film but that is actually the altered, fraudulent copy of the film that the CIA secretly produced at its top-secret Hawkeyeworks facility in Rochester, New York. I was fortunate to be able to include a portion of that interview in my book. The interview was conducted by Thom Whitehead, a Hollywood television and feature-film mastering editor specializing in motion pictures. The interview was conducted as part of a documentary on the Zapruder film that is being produced by Whitehead and his colleague Sydney Wilkinson. Douglas Horne, the author of the watershed book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board and who served on the staff of the ARRB, requested permission from Whitehead and Wilkinson to include a portion of the interview in my book, and they graciously agreed. As far as I know, my book is the first and only place where that portion of the interview has been published. Rutan and Smith The following are excerpts from the partial transcript of that interview that I included in my book: Smith: .…Now, as to my credibility, thirty-seven years in the movie business, I’m not sure how much lower you can go than that; and [I] just got done with nearly twenty-five years at Paramount, where I basically ran their mastering for most of those years and spent the last few years investigating new digital production technology. Rutan: [I’ve] been doing this since 1968, I was delivering film in New York City; and then full time from ’74 I got hired to work for my Dad, and I worked for him for 12 years — started out as janitor, and then shipping, and then film cleaning, and then film repair, and then optical lineup, and then optical printing. So, ever since then I’ve worked for a couple of companies, set up a department at COMPAC video, and I had my own company for 14 years doing restoration. Whitehead: Do you see any signs of alteration? Rutan: Yes. Whitehead: Where do you see them? Rutan: Well [speaking while pointing at frame 313 on a large HD monitor], in the — this explosion right here doesn’t look, it’s, see [pointing] — it’s got defects on it — but it just doesn’t look real, it doesn’t look like blood, it just doesn’t look real…. Rutan: I think you’re looking at a patch, at a photographic patch that they put on the back of his [JFK’s] head. It’s crude, but if you run the film you’ll see that it moves — differently than his head does, as well. So, it’s an optical, some sort of an optical [effect] that they put on there, to not show the back of his head. Whitehead: In your opinion, what do you think would have been the most likely way this would have been accomplished? Rutan: With an optical printer, with an aerial optical printer…. Rutan: Well, the only thing I can see really is how predominant the black patch is in this particular frame [pointing]. I mean, it’s clear to me that that is not the back of his head, that that is some kind of a [sic] optical effect, that has been laid on the back of his head by an optical house. And this [pointing at the large pink “blob” on the right side of JFK’s head] is also an optical effect. But the back of his head is what always — what I’m always drawn to, because you — it’s almost like he’s wearing a toupee, because there’s the top of his head [pointing at JFK’s auburn hair on the very top of his head] and that’s basically the color it should be, and then it’s black, it’s just solid black. Smith: You know, the density doesn’t match — the shoulders don’t match that [meaning that the shadow on the back of JFK’s shoulders does not match the black patch on the back of his head] and [the black patch] doesn’t match the top of his head [pointing to JFK’s auburn colored hair on top]…. Smith: It just seems really obvious that the frames where they’ve matted out the back of the head, and added in the pink splash, the pink water-balloon — whatever it is that’s supposed to be the blood — it’s just not even believable … maybe fifty years ago that might have passed muster, but for anybody — I mean — my impression is if I showed it to a 12-year old kid, they would say it was a cartoon…."

Trump classified documents trial delayed indefinitely, judge rules - The Washington Post Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we learn that Trump's Judge Aileen Cannon has taken luxury vacations funded by Federalist Society plutocrat Leonard Leo.... Geez... 🙄 Judge Cannon's secret right-wing getaway: Why didn't we know about this? | Salon.com

Thanks, JIm. Great substack article. It's amazing that even after several years of JFKA deep-diving, there's stories like this that come up that I'd never heard of. How do you assess the claims he made? What corroboration is there and what do you think was in the picture at the home of Ruby's sister?

You are correct. I apologize.

If you carefully followed the discussion, you would see I don’t believe the photo was faked. I do see some strange effects that I can’t explain but I believe can be explained by someone well versed in film photography as non-sinister. I was trying to figure out why it would need to be faked. It still hasn’t been explained to me why a photo dated November 26, 1963 would need to be faked to account for information that was first revealed on November 29, 1963. I’m still not sure.

By Roscoe White?

You're wrong. Faked by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram?

Faked by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram?

It's a typo. It says the correct date down the page: Special Collections Identifier: AR406-6 11/22/1963 4816 env. 11

https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2024/05/07/dallas-police-patrolman-bobby-hargis/