Sandy Larsen

35 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Clearly, your definition of "demonstrable falsehoods" is not shared by the majority of members here - hence your removal as a moderator.

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."

10 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Can I get a clarification? I can't reconcile these two statements.    
"Jenkins placed the wound entirely above the right ear,"  AND  "that the open wound was above the “occipital area”

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.

13 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I  strongly feel the EF has a moral standard to live up to!

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

19 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

How about you post my entire comment from the Gordon thread instead of one quote taken out of context?

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:

19 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

The fact is, Pat did not lie. Jenkins on multiple occasions placed the wound at the top of the head. On other occasions he placed the wound at the back of the head. Or maybe it was the back of the top of the head, or the top of the back of the head, or maybe it was the back of the head, extending to the top, or maybe it was the top of the head, extending to the back.

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.

20 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

In that case, they should all put you on ignore, IN MY OPINION. It is also my opinion that you, of all people here, sadly and continually advocate for the most extreme and unsupported theories found on the subject (massive alteration of all the film and photo evidence, a decades-long secret government scheme involving Lee Oswald doppelgangers, etc.).

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.

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Jenkins also on multiple occasions pointed to a wound entirely above the right ear on the rear parietal bone.? 

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.

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

This is a Jenkins quote from High Treason 2: 

(1) Everything from just above the right ear back was fragmented…(2) there was (an absence of scalp and bone) along the midline just above the occipital area…(3) this (wound) would not have been low enough to have gotten into the cerebellum.”

Those Jenkins quotations are from different interviews Livingstone gave him, and each is talking about a different thing:

1. Jenkins is talking about the skull fragments on the top of the head, above the gaping wound. Irrelevant.
2. Jenkins is talking about the silver-dollar-sized hole that the morticians created when they reassembled the head. Irrelevant.
3. 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.

34 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

You’re still on this pointless semantic nonsense about Jenkins?

Hey, you're the one who began this debate with me. Are you afraid to follow through?

34 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Where exactly, in your interpretation of anatomy, does the back of the head end, and the top of the head begin?

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.

34 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

If you want to continue to evangelize about semantic nonsense be my guest, but there is nothing here to “debate”.

We are debating what James Jenkins said. There is nothing semantic about it... nothing that needs interpretation.

34 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

How many threads have now been started on this ridiculous topic? 7? 8? 

One.

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The NPR, Wikipedia, the CIA and the JFKA.

What are two JFKA related entities and two things Ben wants to complain about?

Thank you Alex. I'll take MORE THREADS BEN CAN DOMINATE THE FORUM WITH for $400, please.

It's just a joke!

heh heh, as Kirk puts it.

The NPR, Wikipedia, the CIA and the JFKA.

What are two JFKA related entities and two things Ben wants to complain about?

Thank you Alex. I'll take MORE THREADS BEN CAN DOMINATE THE FORUM WITH for $400, please.

Will CNN ask Trump about his 34 felony convictions?

Jonathan,

Have you not noticed that members begin debating other specific members all the time, and in fact do so in most threads? This is a debate forum after all!

Regardless, Tom started debating me in James Gordon's now-closed thread. I am responding to Tom's post in that thread.

I invite Tom to reply.

Remember Tom, we are debating where James Jenkins said the wound was. Not where anybody else thinks the wound was.

Everybody, please allow Tom and I to debate before chiming in.

Tom Gram's Reply:

 After Reconstruction  (Optional Reading)

James Jenkins describes how the gaping wound looked both before and after the morticians had reconstructed the head. We know from the morticians' statements that, after reconstruction of the head fragments, there was a hole remaining in the back of the head about the size of a "small orange" that they had to cover with piece of rubber so that formaldehyde wouldn't trickle out. They stretched and stitched the scalp tightly to cover that hole as must as possible.

What was left was a hole in the scalp the size of a silver dollar, according to James Jenkins.

I shouldn't even have to mention this hole as it is fully irrelevant to the topic of this debate. But Tom Gram has been influenced by Pat Speer, and Pat has gotten this silver-dollar-sized hole all wrong too. So here in this post I quote James Jenkins' statements regarding that hole, both before and after 2015 to prove that what he said about it never changed.

James Jenkins' Description of the Silver Dollar Sized Reconstruction Hole

In 2018, from his book At the Cold Shoulder of History:

"Now they are beginning to put the scalp and bone back in place as best they can. Everything seems to fit back except for the area of about not larger than a silver dollar. It's about I'd say maybe two inches of the occipital area on the parietal side in the area. Kind of standing looking at the head, it would be the upper left of the [original gaping] wound in the area of the [original gaping] wound." [From p. 80 of the Kindle book.]

In 1991, from the video with Harrison Livingstone (see below):

"After the plaster was placed by the mortician ... in the head, it was remolded... there was an area in the back of the head that had -- it was actually a hole in the back of the head that was approximately the size of the silver dollar."

 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.]

In 1991, from the video with Harrison Livingstone (see below):

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."

A couple weeks ago on the James Gordon thread, @Tom Gram began debating me on where James Jenkins placed the gaping wound on Kennedy's head. One of his last statements before Gordon locked the thread was this:

Tom Gram:  "Jenkins on multiple occasions placed the wound at the top of the head."

The truth is that Jenkins NEVER placed the wound at the top of the head. Never. He always placed it unambiguously on the back of the head. He said that what he saw was close to what the (well-known) McClelland drawing shows:

Jenkins said the wound was about the size of a fist.

I was amazed at the vehemence with which Tom argued his case given he clearly knows little about it. I know I wouldn't do that.

Begin Debate

I will begin the debate.

The only thing I need to do to debate my side is to quote James Jenkins himself, which I do in my next post.

Pat Speer claims that Jenkins changed his story in around 2015. This is not true, and I prove so by quoting Jenkins both before and after 2015. Jenkins' story remains the same. I get his post-2015 statements from his book At the Cold Shoulder of History, published in 2018, and his pre-2015 statements from a 1991 video.

Now, for my argument....

I invite Tom to reply.

Remember Tom, we are debating where James Jenkins said the wound was. Not where anybody else thinks the wound was.

Everybody, please allow Tom and I to debate before chiming in.

Tom Gram's Reply:

18 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

The autopsy photos show a wound EXACTLY where it is seen on the right side of the head in the Zapruder film.

The Zapruder film shows a huge blob coming out from the right temple area. The right temple area is fully intact in the autopsy photos.

I notice that you can't argue the other evidence that the Zapruder film was altered... that not a single medical professional saw such a wound, nor did the autopsy report note such a wound,

17 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

This, IN MY OPINION, is complete nonsense.

Okay. So you're the kind of guy who believes your cookies are magically disappearing till you get an exterminator to certify you have a mouse problem.

Got it!

The notion that we must have documentary evidence or proof of the Z film being skirted away for clandestine alteration in order to prove that alteration actually occurred is folly. That is like saying that the only way of knowing a mouse ate a cookie would be to have documentary evidence or proof of having a mouse infestation. If at one moment you have a cookie and at a later moment it is gone, and there is no way a person or animal could have gotten in to take it, the disappearance of the cookie alone is sufficient proof that you have a mouse. Unless you believe in magic.

The fact that the Zapruder film shows a huge chunk of the head being blasted out of the right temple area, and that not a single medical professional saw such a wound; the autopsy photos show no such wound; and the autopsy report notes no such wound, is sufficient evidence to prove that the Z film was altered.

Knowing anything beyond that -- like how the film was skirted off to Hawkeye Works -- is icing on the cake.

21 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

It is unclear what truly prompted President Biden to take a flamethrower to an Act of Congress that he himself voted for in 1992 as a member of the Senate...

It's pretty obvious to me that Biden doesn't want the American public to know that the CIA killed President Kennedy. Not only would that put a big black eye on American history, but it would lead to the dismantling of the CIA.

What is also obvious to me is that in no way is Trump going to get the records released.

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Trading release of the JFK files for a Christian Fascist dictatorship isn't such a hot deal, is it?

I agree Cliff, that's a terrible deal. Even if it were guaranteed the JFK record would be released if Trump were elected, I'd still vote against him. There's just too much damage he could do to our democracy and who knows what else.

51 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Binge-watch Breaking Bad then binge it's equally great prequel series Better Call Saul.

It's a month well spent.

Interesting. But what order should I watch them? Any preference?