Sandy Larsen

I think Hillary would have beaten Trump easily had it not been for the Comey October surprise.

This is what Jeremy does if he can't win an argument. He attacks his opponent.

I thought she was a great candidate.

Yep, and she would have won had it not been for Comey's October Surprise, in spite of American misogyny. She won the popular vote by 3 million, didn't she? As much as I like Bernie Sanders, there's no way I would vote for him in a primary. Too many Americans are afraid of socialism.

I don't believe that any of them are pointing out a gigantic wound. Maybe a small wound with a plume of blood. You don't actually believe yourself that there was a gigantic wound near Kennedy's temple, do you?

All of these people, with the exception of Dr. Humes, is pointing to an entrance wound. Not to the gaping exit wound we see in the Z film. Since Dr. Humes is the man who fraudulently moved the wound location at the autopsy, his testimony isn't credible.

Greg, There were more than 40 witnesses who said they saw a gaping wound on the back of Kennedy's head, and none who said they saw such a wound on Kennedy's right temple -- which is what we see in the extant Z film. What kind of specialists and peer-reviewed journalists do you think we need to determine that the back of the head is not the same place as the right temple?

Here's the bottom line: We know that there are alterations in the Z film because: Not a single witness to Kennedy's head wound saw the gaping wound centered on Kennedy's right temple as can be seen in the Z film. This in spite of the fact that the number of corroborating head-wound witnesses is numerous. The color-logarithmic copy of the Z film clearly shows a painted-on black area on the back of Kennedy's head after frame 313, the edges of which are obviously unnatural in some of the frames. We need no further evidence to prove that the film has been altered. However, it doesn't hurt to theorize on how the alterations were made, and what other alterations were made. Douglas Horne has a perfectly viable theory as to how the alterations were made. Roger Odisio and Keven Hofeling have been defending Horne's theory. Jeremy Bojczuk, Tom Gram, and others have been arguing against Horne's theory. The most repeated argument I've seen is that the theory includes some speculation, and that that somehow invalidates the argument. The truth is, ALL theories include speculation. Without any speculation, they wouldn't be theories at all but rather statements of fact. In science, once someone has posited a theory, it is incumbent on the critics of the theory to prove it wrong. If they show that something in the theory cannot be, then it is incumbent on the adherents of the theory to correct the theory accordingly. After each such step, adherents of the theory should reevaluate the strength of the theory. The strength of a theory is determined roughly by what percentage of it's data points is backed by evidence and not speculation. Horne's theory is the only one I know of that can explain the Z-film alterations we are certain of. Speculation isn't great, but there certainly is some. McMahon's testimony isn't ironclad, but it is more likely to be true than not, given that it gives a reasonable outcome and not some random gibberish. I believe that Horne's theory is probably correct or close to it. I believe that most, if not all, researchers who strongly disagree with Horne's theory are probably anti-alterationists.

Good call, Ron.

Biden was asked why he performed poorly in the debate and his reply was that it's hard to debate a liar. Naturally, going into the debate, I had assumed that Biden had practiced how to respond to Trump known lies. Problem is, Trump lies about EVERYTHING. He makes them up on the fly. So no matter what Biden said, Trump would come back with a lie turning things around, making Biden look bad. I think that what may have happened in the debate was that this Trump tactic frustrated Biden to the point of mild confusion and stumbling. If I were training Biden for the next debate, I would tell him that anytime Trump said a lie that he wasn't anticipating and prepared for, just reply in an exasperated voice, "He's just making that up! That's not the way it was at all." And variations of that response. Don't get frustrated, get even... by calling Trump a liar whenever necessary

"...The first appearance of the head wound was deceiving..." Look Greg, Jenkins also talked about the fractured bones on the top of the head. The ones we see on the top of the head in the autopsy photos. The ones that were said to have been created by the autopsists. But I didn't see any indication in his book that he confused that area with the actual bullet wound... the one on the back of the head. But all of this is irrelevant to the debate anyway. This debate is only about where Jenkins placed the gaping gunshot wound. The one you keep bringing up is the one he said he had been mistaken of earlier in the autopsy.

Greg, I believe you are suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias. From the same book that you say you've read, here is James Jenkins in the conclusion of his book saying what he saw. It is in complete agreement with everything I've told you, and in disagreement with what you've told me: In 2018, from his book At the Cold Shoulder of History: James Jenkins said: The entire area was covered with matted hair and dried blood. This made it difficult to determine the true extent of the wound. This made it appear to be a massive blowout of the back of the head, but after the scalp was reflected back from the skull, the wound that had missing scalp and bone appeared to be more consistent with the shape and dimensions previously described by Dr. McClelland. [From p. 121 of the Kindle book.] This is the wound drawing that Dr. McClelland made to illustrate the wound he saw at Parkland in 1963. This closely matches the wound that I saw after the scalp was retracted from the skull. [From p. 129 of the Kindle book.]

When the towels were taken off of Kennedy's head at Bethesda, with all the dried blood and matted hair, it looked to James Jenkins like the whole back of the head was blown off. But later, when the scalp was reflected, Jenkins discovered that he was wrong. With the scalp reflected he could see that the hole (through the scalp and bone) was much smaller, about the size of a closed fist. When asked about it decades later, Jenkins placed the hole at close to the same place as McClelland did in his drawing. Maybe a little higher, according to Jenkins. At first Jenkins thought the whole back of Kennedy's head was gone. But later in the autopsy, when the scalp was reflected, he could see that he had been mistaken Jenkins never said there was a wound that extended to the top of the head because there wasn't one. That was just an early mistake that he'd made. These statements are all irrelevant because this debate is only about where Jenkins placed the hole... top or back. He always said back and never said top. And for good reason. He said it was about the same place McClelland had placed the wound in his drawing. "A little higher, maybe" according to Jenkins. No reasonable person would say that that wound, even if moved a little higher, was on the top of the head. But, as I said, this is irrelevant. This debate is only about whether or not Jenkins ever said the wound was on top. He never did. No, I will not agree to that because there was no such wound! As I keep telling you, Jenkins was mistaken about that being the wound. He discovered he was mistaken when they reflected the scalp and he got a better look. If you continue reading the book beyond the part that you quoted, you will discover that he realized later in the autopsy, after the scalp was reflected, that he was mistaken about the size of the wound. He discovered that it did NOT extend to the top of the head, and actually was much smaller -- the size of a fist -- and was located where McClelland placed in on his drawing... maybe a little higher. There is no no need to go on with your speculating about two gaping holes, etc. Just read the book. You will find nothing more that what I've told you.

I didn't say that Jenkins never SAW a gaping wound at the top of the head. I said he never PLACED the gaping wound at the top of the head. Apparently you didn't even read my proof in post #2, the proof being Jenkins own words. Because had you done so, you'd realize a big mistake you are making in this here post. I will explain: Oh yeah, Jenkins did believe when they first removed the towels that the whole back of Kennedy's head had been blown off, along with some other damage to the head. But after the scalp had been reflected, he could more easily assess the extent of the wound. What he discovered was that the size of the wound wasn't as large as he originally thought, and in fact was about the size of a closed fist. And it was located roughly where McClelland's drawing shows the wound. You'd know that had you kept reading the book. What I've highlighted in red above should have tipped you off to do just that. For your convenience, here again is my proof, i.e. James Jenkins own words. The part in red explains what I just informed you of: James Jenkins' Description of the Gaping Head Wound In 2018, from his book At the Cold Shoulder of History: The entire area was covered with matted hair and dried blood. This made it difficult to determine the true extent of the wound. This made it appear to be a massive blowout of the back of the head, but after the scalp was reflected back from the skull, the wound that had missing scalp and bone appeared to be more consistent with the shape and dimensions previously described by Dr. McClelland. [From p. 121 of the Kindle book.] This is the wound drawing that Dr. McClelland made to illustrate the wound he saw at Parkland in 1963. This closely matches the wound that I saw after the scalp was retracted from the skull. [From p. 129 of the Kindle book.]

I agree. I agree. I agree. Hopefully no Harris. No offense, but to me she seems soooo boring.

Fact: James Jenkins said the gaping wound was on the back of the head and was the size of a fist. This is proved below with Jenkins' own words. Fact: Pat Speer said that James Jenkins placed the wound on the top of the head. But Pat has absolutely no evidence or proof of that being the case! Conclusion 1: What Pat said is a demonstrable falsehood. Conclusion 2: My definition of demonstrable falsehood is the same as what the dictionary dictates. The small handful of members here who believe otherwise are mistaken. Proof that James Jenkins placed the wound on the back of the head, and NOT the top: In 1991, from the video with Harrison Livingstone (see below): James Jenkins said: I would like to kind of reverse a little bit and go back to what the wound looked like when we actually took the towels off the head at the initial. The wound was a massive type of wound where it was an open gaping wound approximately the size of a closed fist or maybe a little larger, more similar to what Dr. McClelland says in his drawing. ...as far as the area that it was in, I remember the wound a little higher maybe than in the drawing."

Chris, You need to be careful with what Tom Gram says because certain authors he gets his information from combined multiple James Jenkins statements, separated by ellipses, without noting that they were about different aspects of the head wound. For example, Jenkins talked about the gaping wound on the back of the head -- in which he originally thought that the whole back of the head had been blasted off -- till the scalp was reflected -- at which time he could see that the hole was only about the size of a fist. In addition, he also spoke about the silver-dollar-sized hole that remained after the morticians had completed reassembling the head. He also talked about the skull fragments located on top of the head. Instead of trying to figure out these mixed-wound statements, which are further complicated by somebody (Tom?) paraphrasing them, all anyone needs to do is read what Jenkins said in his 2018 book and what he said in his 1991 interview with Livingstone. Relevant quotes from these sources are conveniently located in posts #2 and #3 of this thread.

I feel the same way, Jean. Which is why I thinks members shouldn't be allowed to post demonstrable falsehoods.

You want to post your entire comment because it obfuscates what our debate is about. Our debate is about where James Jenkins placed the gaping head wound. It is NOT about where the wound actually was. The reason for the distinction is that Keven Hofeling's thread was all about where Jenkins placed the wound. And I penalized Pat Speer for posting false information about where Jenkins placed the wound. None of that stuff back then was about the actual location of the wound. But if you want me to put the comment of yours that I quoted into context, that's fine... I'll be happy to. Here is the complete paragraph, with the bolded sentence being the one I quoted: As anybody can see, the sentence I quoted stands alone and is not affected by the remaining sentences of the paragraph. That is to say, the context makes no difference. So Tom, do you still believe that Jenkins placed the wound on the top of the head? Ever? If so, what evidence do you have that he did? I believe you have zero evidence of that.

I hope you have a nice day, too, Jonathan.

As I said at the beginning of this debate, Tom Gram claimed that James Jenkins himself said that the blowout wound was on the top of Kennedy's head. Here are Tom's exact words Tom Gram: "Jenkins on multiple occasions placed the wound at the top of the head." And yet Tom can't find a single instance of Jenkins ever placing the wound there. He lost the debate. So why did Tom -- a normally exceptional researcher and respected member of the forum -- ever think such an erroneous thing about James Jenkins? I'll tell you why. Tom got his misinformation from Pat Speer. And he believed it. My primary purpose for challenging Tom to this debate was to demonstrate why it is important to have a forum rule against posting demonstrably false information. We should want our members NOT to be exposed to false information when it can be avoided.

As I said at the beginning of this debate, Tom Gram claimed that James Jenkins himself had said that the blowout wound was on the top of Kennedy's head. Here are Tom's exact words Tom Gram: "Jenkins on multiple occasions placed the wound at the top of the head." And yet Tom can't find a single instance of Jenkins ever placing the wound there. He lost the debate. So why did Tom -- a normally excellent researcher and respected member of the forum -- ever think such an erroneous thing about James Jenkins? I'll tell you why. Tom got his misinformation from Pat Speer. And he believed it. My primary purpose for challenging Tom to this debate was to demonstrate why it is important to have a forum rules against posting demonstrably false information. We shouldn't want our members to be exposed to false information when it can be avoided.

Show me one video where Jenkins is pointing to the top of his head. One that has audio so we know what he is pointing to.

Those Jenkins quotations are from different interviews Livingstone gave him, and each is talking about a different thing: Jenkins is talking about the skull fragments on the top of the head, above the gaping wound. Irrelevant. Jenkins is talking about the silver-dollar-sized hole that the morticians created when they reassembled the head. Irrelevant. Jenkins is talking about the gaping wound on the back of the head. This is the correct wound, but the statement doesn't indicate where the wound is. So it is aslo irrelevant. Here are some Jenkins quotations from other Livingstone interviews, also from High Treason 2: I looked at the back of the head, but all I saw was the massive gaping wound. There was a hole in all of it [the scalp and the bone]. There was a hole in the occipital-parietal area.

Hey, you're the one who began this debate with me. Are you afraid to follow through? The topic of the debate is where did James Jenkins place the gaping wound. Not was the wound on the back of the head or the top. So you're question is irrelevant. Nice deflection, though. We are debating what James Jenkins said. There is nothing semantic about it... nothing that needs interpretation. One.