Gil Jesus

James Curtis Jenkins also photographs showing an entrance wound at the hairline were seen by Dennis David and WH photographer Joe O'Donnell.

You're kidding, right ? You think this photograph is showing the front of the head ? Really ? You must be the only one on the planet who thinks so. If you're inclined to believe the F8 ( what I call FE7 ) photo I posted shows the front of the head you would be wrong. If you were correct, and the face was in the foreground, all the damage would have been on the left side ( from Kennedy's perspective ) of the skull.But it wasn't. There was little if any damage to the left side of the skull or the left hemisphere of the brain. All the damage was done in the right side of the skull and the right hemisphere of the brain. No autopsy x-ray supports your assumption that this is the front of the head. No autopsy photograph supports your assumption that this is the front of the head. No witness identification of the massive head wound supports your assumption that this is the front of the head. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/BE7_HI1_21-1-1024x432.jpg In addition, for your assumption to be correct, there would have to be specific physical evidence in the photo that this was showing the front of the head. For example: Where's the right side eye socket ? Where's the nasal cavity ? Where's the right side of his teeth ? The photo shows the bone on the right side to be solid with none of the above present. Why ? Because this is a photo of the BACK of the skull sans the scalp. It's obvious that the photo is oriented correctly with the BACK of the head in the foreground and the face in the rear. An entrance wound in the right front near the hairline is evident as described by autopsy witnesses and the gaping rear exit wound is in the foreground at the right rear is where the Dallas doctors placed it. To suggest anything to the contrary is just being dishonest. And on the edge of that gaping rear wound is a bevelling where the bullet that entered the hairline exited.

If you think that picture of the gaping hole at the back of the head is so blurry you can't tell if it's an exit wound or not, then all I can tell you is you need glasses. And while you're at it, could you tell us who the photographic expert was who identified the semi-circle hole on the edge of the large "defect" ( the one I've identified as a wound of exit ) as an "optical Illusion" ? Thanks.

ROFLMAO. Thank You. I needed a good laugh today. Here's your "optical illusion", autopsy photo BE7-HI: BTW, can we see that citation where Finck was shown this particular photo and claimed it was too blurred to make an identification of an exit wound ? I can't seem to find that in my files. Thanks.

by Gil Jesus ( 2023 ) Dr. Humes' final autopsy report stated that "in the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits bevelling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull." ( 16 H 981 )One autopsy photograph proves this was not so.Unlike an exit wound in flesh, which leaves a ragged or jagged edge to the wound, an exit wound in the skull blasts out of the bone leaving a "bevel" at the point of exit. A bevel on the inside table of the skull indicates a wound of entry while a bevel on the outside of the skull indicates a wound of exit. Below is a typical gunshot wound to the skull showing the entrance wound ( A ) on the outside of the skull and the bevelling on the inside of the skull ( B ) as the bullet exited the bone. Humes' statement that the bevelling was seen "when viewing from the inner aspect of the skull" indicates that the wound was a wound of entry. ( CE 387, pg. 4 )But autopsy photo F8, shows a bevelling of the wound on the OUTSIDE of the skull on the perimeter edge of the large exit wound. This bevelling indicates that a bullet EXITED at the large head wound. The result is that the autopsy photo does not support the autopsy report.The autopsy report indicates that Humes knew how to interpret the bevelling information. Three fragments which were blown off the skull in Dealey Plaza found their way to Bethesda and were included in the autopsy report. The largest of these had a bevelling on the outside which Humes correctly identified as an exit wound. ( 16 H 981 ) If he knew the bevelling on the outside edge of the large fragment indicated a wound of exit, he knew the bevelling on the outside edge of the large wound in the back of the skull indicated an exit wound as well. In other words, Dr. Humes changed the exit wound he saw to an entrance wound. He deliberately lied about the head wound he saw. With Oswald positioned behind the motorcade, they had to have the official record show all shots were fired from behind.This is the reason why he and the Secret Service pressured the Dallas doctors, specifically Dr. Malcolm Perry, to back off his statement that the throat wound was an entry wound.It's the reason why Humes lied to Rydberg about the autopsy photos and x-rays being unavailable and why he preferred dictating a description of the wounds. Rydberg could not be allowed to see the autopsy photos, evidence that proved Humes' autopsy report was a lie.And it's also the real reason why Humes burned his original autopsy notes after Lee Harvey Oswald was dead. In addition, the medical people involved in the autopsy were sworn to secrecy under penalty of court-martial. All of these actions when combined could only serve one sinister purpose: to hide the fact that the shot that hit the President in the throat and at least one that hit him in the head came from the front.

Amid accusations that Lee Harvey Oswald was being abused by the Dallas Police, he is brought before the Press at Midnight, Friday November 22nd. Earlier in the evening, Oswald had been charged with killing Officer Tippit and although the paperwork had been filled out charging him with the assassination of the President, he had not yet been arraigned on or heard that charge. In the audience, with a pistol in his pocket, is Jack Ruby. I think the break in his voice ( "the reporters in the hall" ) reveals a lot. He's definitely scared.

Lee Harvey Oswald proclaims his innocence in the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit and tells the world that the Dallas Police are denying him legal assistance.

IMO, Brennan never saw Oswald in the window. He saw the man with the rifle, but it wasn't Oswald. He knew that when he viewed the lineup and because he feared that he was the only witness, he knew the real shooter was still at large. So he stopped short of falsely identifying Oswald, saying only that Oswald "most resembled" the man he saw. Of course, Oswald was in a lineup with three police employees who didn't match his descritpion or the description of the man seen by witnesses. Once Oswald was dead and he knew he wasn't going to send an innocent man to the chair, Brennan identified Oswald as the man he saw. This closed the book on him and kept him safe from the possibility that the real shooter would come after him. I find it humorous that cardboard boxes could be mistaken for the shooter's "khaki" clothing. Were they button-down boxes ? What "explanation" will they come up with next ?

Reporter Seth Kantor claims to have seen and talked to Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital. The Warren Commission chose not to believe him.

It is when Brennan never described the color as "reddish" or "brown". He specifically described it as "khaki" ( tan ). Oswald wasn't wearing khaki colored clothing that day.

How did we get from Howard Brennan to the shirt fibers on the rifle ? Looks like David Von Pein has once again changed the subject as he usually does. So let me stick my two cents in in support of Pat Speer. This is what Pat is talking about. There was fingerprint powder in the crevice but the shirt fibers were clean, indicating that the fibers didn't get onto the rifle until AFTER the rifle was dusted for fingerprints. Stombaugh testified that the fibers, "were clean" and "looked as if they had just been picked up" by the rifle, in spite of the fact that there was a "presence of fingerprint powder being down in and through the crevice." Since we know that the rifle was dusted for fingerprints at the TSBD, this is evidence that the fibers could not have gotten onto the rifle prior to or during the assassination. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/lt-day-dusting-rifle.mp4 Below is Stombaugh's testimony that proves Pat's argument. Mr. Von Pein or his allies are now free to change the subject....again.

Researchers discuss the motive and coverup behind President Kennedy's assassination.

Howard L. Brennan was standing at the corner of Houston and Elm facing the Texas Book Depository in Dealey Plaza when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Brennan claimed he saw Lee Harvey Oswald firing a rifle from the window of the 6th Floor. His description of the man he saw, however, does not match the description of Oswald. This is an interview he gave in 1964.

The one who identified Oswald as the man he saw in the window with a rifle, ( 3 H 148 ) or the one who testified that the Oswald he identified from the lineup was wearing different clothing frfom the man with the rifle ( 3 H 161 ) ?Can't have it both ways, boys.Either Oswald did the shooting in the shirt he was wearing when arrested, or he changed his shirt after the shooting and the shirt fibers from the arrested shirt were planted on the rifle. So which Brennan do you believe ?

Sorry for the repeat. Too bad we can't delete posts.

And the FBI was ordered NOT to interview some of those witnesses. In fact, Hoover ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview Mrs. Clemons and the Wrights. That's not the way you handle a criminal investigation.

Sound like someone who thought Oswald was guilty ?

Does it mean they're actually guilty ? What else would you expect an innocent person to say, "I did it" ? LOL. Jack Ruby was guilty of murdering Oswald. Did he proclaim his innocence while in custody ? No. So your argument is pointless.

Abraham Zapruder was a Ukrainian-born American clothing manufacturer who witnessed the assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. He unexpectedly captured the shooting in a home movie while filming the presidential limousine and motorcade as it traveled through Dealey Plaza. The Zapruder film is regarded as the most complete footage of the assassination. This is an enhanced version of that film. Because I put an age restriction on the video, ( violence ) you'll need to click, "Watch on Youtube" link to view.

A look at the conflict between the official time of the arrival of President Kennedy's body to Bethesda Naval Hospital and the time witnesses said it arrived.

Charles, Warren Commission supporters, when faced with evidence they can't debate, will always respond with sarcasm, insults or smart-alecky remarks. Whether they realize it or not, those types of responses only serve to further damage their credibility. Just be thankful he didn't say anything about your mother.

Tell us, Mr. Down: why would the Director of the FBI order his agents NOT to interview certain witnesses to the Tippit murder ? Seems to me, in a criminal inevstigation, you interview ALL of the witnesses, regardless of what they have to say. But in this case, as late as mid-October, 1964, the Dallas Agents were ordered NOT to interview Acquilla Clemons and the Wrights. Why is that ?

Acquilla Clemons lived on the north side of Tenth Street in Dallas. On 22nd November, 1963, Clemons was sitting on the porch of her house when she saw Officer J. D. Tippit killed. She was never interviewed by the FBI and never called to give testimony to the Warren Commission. This is her 1966 interview with Mark Lane.

Sounds like Frank Wright to me. Whoever it is, this witness corroborates what Acquila Clemmons said she saw: two men who ran off in different directions.

One has to ask the question how could John Lennon compare JFK to President Reagan when Lennon was murdered a month before Reagan was even inaugurated ? I think articles like this are a bunch of BS. Entertaining but nothing more.