The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Roger Odisio]

20 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

nonsense - they have lost other films and documents - and if you answer, well, this was something that was much more graphic and valuable, well, virtually no one knew it at the time and no one could have, in the aftermath, proved it. It would have been simply forgotten. The logic of the alterationist position is beyond bizarre - given a choice between altering something that STILL convinced everyone of a conspiracy, and destroying the evidence, they would have destroyed the evidence. What a lot of alterationists don't really get is how different the world was in 1963. A lost film would simply have faded from evidence - think about something - the actual film didn't surface publicly for about 10 years, so it was essentially lost - and NO ONE complained or noticed in that time, in any way that effected public opinion. I challenge you to cite one source - ANY SOURCE - who cited the Zapruder in the period between the assassination and the reveal on Geraldo, or who said it was incriminating or urgent to release it. Really - find me one citation, one quote that really had an impact on public opinion. There is not one, because public opinion isn't effected until the film - supposedly altered - is shown on national television. Which completely proves that if the Zapruder film had disappeared no one would have made that much of its absence.

It is fine if you can prove me wrong, but you have to come up with evidence.

AL:  nonsense - they have lost other films and documents - and if you answer, well, this was something that was much more graphic and valuable, well, virtually no one knew it at the time and no one could have, in the aftermath, proved it. It would have been simply forgotten.

 

RO:  Virtually no one knew the value of the Z film at the time?  It would have been simply forgotten? You are mistaken.

 

The day of the murder, Zapruder quickly had the film developed and watched it several times to be clear about what it showed. He went on national TV to discuss what he had filmed. He was in a prime spot to capture the fatal shots.

 

That quickly created a bidding war among major media for limited rights to the film. *Everyone recognized its value*.  Life magazine, fronting for the CIA, easily won the bid and announced they were going to publish some stills from the Z film in the following weeks' issue.  Soon the public would get to see everything that happened, so the the story went.

 

The CIA's deal with Zapruder was this. Zapruder would hand the film original to the Life, and keep some copies.  Life received limited rights to make stills of the film for its magazine and was to return the original to Zapruder in a few days in exchange for one of the copies Zapruder retained.

 

AL: The logic of the alterationist position is beyond bizarre - given a choice between altering something that STILL convinced everyone of a conspiracy, and destroying the evidence, they would have destroyed the evidence.

 

RO:  You have mischaracterized the choice.  You've loaded the options. The choice was *not* between destroying the film and trying an alteration *that would fail to conceal their guilt!*.  The real option they had that weekend was  trying to alter the film sufficiently in the hopes of salvaging their Oswald story. Since the media and much of the public, already knew about the Z film and understood its importance, It turns out trying alteration was actually their only option. As opposed to destruction, alteration allowed the killers tohave a film they could call the original.  Which is what they did at Hawkeye Works, unless you want to claim the CIA did something else there and the film that returned to the NPIC on Sunday was still the intact original.

 

Stop and think a minute about what you're saying.  You can only make your claim that the killers should have destroyed the film by ignoring the situation at the time.

 

Zapruder had the original film.  If the killers had an option to destroy it when and how were they going to do that? They would have to win the public bid for its rights first.  And then take the film and destroy it?  To be left to explain what happened to it when asked?  Sound plausible to you? Again, the CIA had no real option other than to first try alteration.  If successful, that would leave them with a film they could claim was the original. 

 

But the alteration failed and they went to plan B.  They sent Life back to Zapruder to buy the full rights to the film, including the right to show it as a motion picture, and then buried it from public view for 12 years while their Oswald story took hold.  When a bootleg copy of the altered film was shown on TV in 1975, the CIA's job of hiding it was done. Life gave the film back to Zapruder for $1, verifying that their purpose all along was to bury the film if they couldn't successfully alter it.

 

Here is something else to ponder.  We know the CIA took the original film that weekend to two of its labs, including its then secret one at Hawkeye Works. To do what, if not film alteration?

 

We had been told for decades that upon securing limited rights to the film, Life had flown the film to its Chicago headquarters to begin preparing some stills for publication in its magazine.  That was a lie.  Why was the lie necessary?

 

AL:  What a lot of alterationists don't really get is how different the world was in 1963.

 

RO:  You don't have to tell me how different 1963 was from today, Allen.  I was there back then.  I just commented on those stark differences in another thread.

 

AL:  A lost film would simply have faded from evidence

 

RO:  Answered above.

 

AL:- think about something - the actual film didn't surface publicly for about 10 years, so it was essentially lost - and NO ONE complained or noticed in that time, in any way that effected public opinion.  I challenge you to cite one source - ANY SOURCE - who cited the Zapruder in the period between the assassination and the reveal on Geraldo, or who said it was incriminating or urgent to release it. Really - find me one citation, one quote that really had an impact on public opinion. There is not one, because public opinion isn't effected until the film - supposedly altered - is shown on national television. Which completely proves that if the Zapruder film had disappeared no one would have made that much of its absence.

 

RO:  One thing is true.  Had someone else--say CBS--won the full rights to the original film and shown it on national TV that Sunday night, it would have been a game changer.  But the CIA wasn't going to let that happen.  Which is why they had no choice but to do what they did. 

 

The fact that there wasn't a public outcry when the film was not shown for 12 years proves nothing.  Stills from the altered film were published in a few issues of Life, to give the impression to the public that they had seen everything that happened.  Oswald was identified in several ways on the day of the murder as the assassin and the public was deluged with lies supporting that, culminating in the official conclusion of the Warren Commission about 10 months later. In short the coverup took over and has been very successful in preventing lots of different kinds of dissent from its story. You must have noticed that.

 

There has lacked a public outcry about a bunch of things over the last 60 years. That's nothing to hang your hat on.

[Tom Gram]

What credible evidence is there that the alleged black patch is not a natural shadow? Has anyone attempted to refute this study, which concluded that the shadow is “physically plausible” and “consistent with the 3D geometry of the scene and sub position”?

https://farid.berkeley.edu/downloads/publications/tr10a.pdf

In other words, is there any actual evidence in the film itself to suggest a black patch alteration to the back of JFK’s head, or is it still just speculation based on Parkland doctor statements? How exactly would one even detect such a thing? Wouldn’t access to the original film be necessary? 

Anything is possible, and I wouldn’t be surprised if capability did exist to edit the film in 1963, but I’ve never seen a credible demonstration of how it would’ve been done on an in-camera original Kodak film in the required time frame. 

As it stands, barring a full-scale reopening of the case, no-one is going to get a chance to perform a forensic examination of the original Z-film. Period. There is currently zero physical evidence that the film was altered, and the argument that the alleged alterations failed miserably since the film still convinced the public of conspiracy is compelling. 

I would support a forensic exam by objective experts, but until then, in my opinion, attempting to argue Z-film alteration based on perceived anomalies and ambiguous witness statements is a waste of time. Until someone comes up with actual proof of alteration, the film can and should be assumed authentic. Without new evidence, no one is going to be convinced of alteration who isn’t already convinced - certainly no one in a position make actual progress on the JFK case. 

As a side note, though I disagree with him on many topics, some quite strongly, this is where I see the most value in Pat’s work on the medical evidence. If Pat is correct that the extant medical evidence and Z-film can used to prove conspiracy to a respectable standard, that is a much more compelling argument for someone in a position to reinvestigate the case than any alteration theory. The vast majority of reasonable people would dismiss the popular alteration-based conspiracy theories as insane without hard evidence, which currently doesn’t exist. If Pat’s argument could be used to convince someone with access that JFK was shot twice in the head for example, that could lead to real, measurable progress vs. arguing the same crap over and over on Internet forums.

This is stretching it, but what if Pat’s argument eventually opened up access to the original autopsy material for study, and an expert analysis came out stating that the brain photos are not of JFK’s brain? This is really stretching it, but what if Pat’s argument led to proof that the autopsy photos were altered and there really was a hole in the back of JFK’s head?

My point is that if our goal is to better understand the history of the JFK assassination - which it should be - or make actual progress toward reopening the case, alternate theories should be embraced, not rejected and ridiculed, especially conservative theories that a non-JFK conspiracy nut may find compelling. You never know who might be paying attention. 

Pat might be right, or he might be wrong. We don’t know, but to not even consider the possibility that the autopsy materials and Z-film are authentic based solely on a subjective interpretation of eyewitness statements and ambiguous circumstantial evidence is just bad analysis. It’s fine to suspect alteration, but believing something so strongly that you refuse to consider or discuss alternatives is usually a sign you have a bias problem. Recent events suggest that certain folks here have a bias problem. So many comments reflect an irrationally strong emotional attachment to preferred theories, and a profound lack of self awareness, in my opinion.

Guess what folks? You might be wrong. 

Edited June 7 by Tom Gram

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Sorry, I meant to add in my last comment that Jenkins did describe a wound high in the head above the right ear. William Madden Law shows a picture of Jenkins indicating the wound’s location (I think he is placing it a bit too high, but he was placing it by “feel,” not by looking in a mirror or indicating on a mannequin.) He was actually describing a “hole” (not a blow-out) hat he thought was an entrance, due largely to the influence of a previous autopsy he had attended when there’s was a bullet entrance at about this same location. Jenkins’s observation is supported by Dr. Michael Chesser, in his chapter of Jenkins’s book, where he describes a small hole above the ear in the lateral X-ray. I believe that this is the exit point for the AR-15 bullet. Speer (mistakenly) thought that Jenkins was describing the front of the head “blow-out”—which (again) is depicted in the (altered) autopsy photos. So again, Speer was telling his “truth”—but he was wrong/mistaken (not deliberately lying).

I'm sorry, Denise, but this is inaccurate. The gray smear Jenkins assumed to mark an entrance location was just above the ear on the side of the head. When Jenkins pointed out the hole to Law he was pointing out where there was an absence of scalp and skull when he first saw the body. This isn't what people want to believe, but this is what he said. As you have spent some time on my website you know I have spent an awful lot of time studying witness statements. And they are often erratic, if not fully inconsistent. 

Our memories are not consistent from year to year and decade to decade, or even from day to day. And JFK witnesses are probably even less consistent than most of us because of the influence of outside information. There are a number of witnesses who heard the last two shots bang bang but then made out they were equally spaced, after they'd been told it was one shooter with a bolt action rifle. Mary Woodward thought she heard a sound from west of the TSBD but then spent years apologizing for it and claiming she had bad hearing or whatever. So we know some people are swayed over time in that direction. But unrecognized by some is that people can be swayed in the other direction as well. 

Here from Law's book are the exact words... They are discussing the large head wound.

Law: How big do you estimate the wound was?

Jenkins: It would be difficult to estimate because a lot of the hair was still attached to the skull fragments--the skull was fragmented. But I would say that if you take your hand and you put the heel of your thumb behind your ear, that would cover the basic part of the wound with the open hole approximately in that area. 

Now, as demonstrated in the book and in the images posted here by Keven, the "basic part of the wound"--where fractured skull underlay the scalp and fell to the table when the scalp was reflected--was at the top of the back of the head--basically from the ear up on the right side. But the "open hole" is at the very top of the back of the head, essentially the crown. 

This is what Jenkins told me and others in a 2013 appearance at the Lancer conference, moreover. He said a lot of stuff at that conference that was at odds with with official story, and questioned the accuracy of the autopsy photos, etc. But I was mortified to discover that within hours of Jenkins saying there was NO HOLE on the back of the head between the ears when the body was put on the autopsy table, that certain people were citing his questioning the accuracy of the autopsy photos as evidence supporting their theory there was a hole on the back of the head between the ears. When I asked Jenkins about this in 2015, moreover--whether he realized many were taking his statements and using them to support stuff he had claimed was not true--he said, and Matt Douthit was there with me and he wrote this down the same way, something like "Whadda you gonna do? People will believe what they want to believe?" 

It is telling then that when Jenkins put out his book in 2018 that he singled out one theory in particular as one that people should not believe.

At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018):

(Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in th morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell performed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning."

Now, despite many claims otherwise, I am a conspiracy theorist, and suspect all this hubbub about what Jenkins said and what I said Jenkins said was meant to conceal that Jenkins has specifically denounced the theory held dear by those who attacked me, and tried to (IMO) censor me. 

I mean, I just think it's odd that they get so upset about what I claim Jenkins said, while saying nothing about Doug Horne's appearance in JFK: What the Doctors Saw, in which he falsely claimed Jenkins had seen a bullet entrance high on JFK's forehead. 

I mean, let's pretend they are correct, and that I misrepresented Jenkins' statements--that misrepresentation reaches maybe a thousand people, half of whom don't care, and another half who probably think differently. So I am at best misinforming a couple of hundred people--the vast majority of whom will subsequently come to believe I was incorrect (Keep in mind that we're assuming I was incorrect.) So maybe ten or twenty people by the end of the year have been "fooled" by my misinformation. 

And yet Doug Horne told a blatant falsehood on international TV in a program that will eventually be seen by millions. And not just any millions--people with a passing interest in the case. So his misinformation will eventually "fool" hundreds of thousands of people, or more...

And yet I am the source of the tempest in this teapot, and not Horne. 

Now, whenever I bring this up, my comments get buried under a mountain of vitriol and unrelated text. So I'm predicting this will happen again. Let's find out. 

Edited June 7 by Pat Speer

[Tom Gram]

32 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, whenever I bring this up, my comments get buried under a mountain of vitriol and unrelated text. So I'm predicting this will happen again.

I think you can count on it. 

I bet you are right that this nonsense about Jenkins is largely because he has specifically denounced the body alteration theory. Horne’s statements in his book desperately trying to get Jenkins out of the morgue for 90 minutes or whatever are pretty funny. I’m curious if that’s the preferred approach with Jenkins to make Horne‘s alleged surgery work - ignoring his statements about never leaving the morgue and just making s*** up. Maybe Keven can enlighten us. 

[Roger Odisio]

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

What credible evidence is there that the alleged black patch is not a natural shadow? Has anyone attempted to refute this study, which concluded that the shadow is “physically plausible” and “consistent with the 3D geometry of the scene and sub position”?

https://farid.berkeley.edu/downloads/publications/tr10a.pdf

In other words, is there any actual evidence in the film itself to suggest a black patch alteration to the back of JFK’s head, or is it still just speculation based on Parkland doctor statements? How exactly would one even detect such a thing? Wouldn’t access to the original film be necessary? 

 

I disagree with most of this, Tom, and that surprises me.  You posted this at about the same time I posted my piece that sits above it,  So I'm assuming you hadn't read what I said beforehand.  So a request.  Can you read my post about alteration and respond to it? 

 

In the meantime I'd like to respond to a few things you say here, with one caveat.  While I think there *is* clear and pretty convincing *physical* evidence of alteration, that's not what I want to focus on here.  I think what we have learned about the travels of the film that weekend and thereafter, and by whom they were accomplished, particularly its trip to the CIA's then secret lab, Hawkeye Works, establishes a strong case for alteration.  At the very least it requires an alternative explanation, if alteration wasn't the purpose, which as far as I know nobody has tried. 

 

Some comments:

 

TG: Anything is possible, and I wouldn’t be surprised if capability did exist to edit the film in 1963, but I’ve never seen a credible demonstration of how it would’ve been done on an in-camera original Kodak film in the required time frame. 

 

RO:  What is the "required time frame"?  The second set of briefing boards that now reside at NARA were not finished when Homer McMahon left Sunday night. He told Horne  some frames he prepared for the boards are no longer on it while things he didn't do are. We don't know when the boards were finished or who did the additional work. Likewise with the film, which was out of sight for a long time. Everything did not have to be done between the time the film arrived at Hawkeye Works and was then back at NPIC.   

 

TG: As it stands, barring a full-scale reopening of the case, no-one is going to get a chance to perform a forensic examination of the original Z-film. Period. There is currently zero physical evidence that the film was altered, and the argument that the alleged alterations failed miserably since the film still convinced the public of conspiracy is compelling. 

 

RO:  The argument that the alterations failed and the film still showed evidence of a conspiracy does *not* mean that no alterations were tried, or that the extant Z film is the original.  It just means the alterations failed. We can also deduce that they failed because the CIA had Life magazine go back to Zapruder that Sunday and buy the full rights to the film so it could be buried for 12 years while the Oswald story took hold. 

 

No one is going to get a chance to forensically examine the original Z film because it no longer exists after the alteration.

 

TG:  I would support a forensic exam by objective experts, but until then, in my opinion, attempting to argue Z-film alteration based on perceived anomalies and ambiguous witness statements is a waste of time. Until someone comes up with actual proof of alteration, the film can and should be assumed authentic. Without new evidence, no one is going to be convinced of alteration who isn’t already convinced - certainly no one in a position make actual progress on the JFK case.

 

RO:  The claim of alteration does not depend solely on forensic evidence as I said.  Nor is it based on "perceived anomalies  and ambiguous witness statements" 

 

TG:  As a side note, though I disagree with him on many topics, some quite strongly, this is where I see the most value in Pat’s work on the medical evidence. If Pat is correct that the extant medical evidence and Z-film can used to prove conspiracy to a respectable standard, that is a much more compelling argument for someone in a position to reinvestigate the case than any alteration theory. The vast majority of reasonable people would dismiss the popular alteration-based conspiracy theories as insane without hard evidence, which currently doesn’t exist. If Pat’s argument could be used to convince someone with access that JFK was shot twice in the head for example, that could lead to real, measurable progress vs. arguing the same crap over and over on Internet forums.

 

RO:  The argument that JFK was hit by two close together shots in the head can indeed be a game changer, imo.  Did you see the presentation on that at Duquesne a few months ago by the Thompson group?  One of the most important parts was when they talked about the bone and tissue that hit one of the cops riding behind and to the left of JFK with such force he thought initially that he had been shot. They abandoned the Z film to show this, which had been the heart of their presentation, and diagrammed it. *Because the extent Z film doesn't show it.*

 

The Z film doesn't show the limo slowed a lot or stopped either even though so many folks said they saw that. But there is a showing of one of the cops riding up beside the limo and then receding back again.

 

TG:  My point is that if our goal is to better understand the history of the JFK assassination - which it should be - or make actual progress toward reopening the case, alternate theories should be embraced, not rejected and ridiculed, especially conservative theories that a non-JFK conspiracy nut may find compelling. You never know who might be paying attention.

 

RO: This point goes for the Z film alteration as well, doesn't it?  One thing to ponder about that is if alteration was done that weekend it had to be done under the direction of the CIA. Only they could have had access to their own facilities at NPIC and Hawkeye Works, and off course they had every reason to alter the Z film.

 

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

8 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

This is where James Jenkins himself sketched the location of what he believes to be an entrance wound in JFK's right temple...

 Thanks for the image. Note the small nature of the wound . Not a blow-out, which is why Jenkins thought it was an entrance. Nevertheless, I do think it was an exit—for the AR-15 second headshot—because with the first headshot there was already a blowout through which the majority of energy created by the AR-15 shot could escape, without creating a new blowout. Jenkins reported the autopsy doctors as saying that his wound was “caused by” a bullet. “Caused by” is not specific to whether it was an entrance or an exit. 
 

I don’t suppose Zediker has a website or something with this image, that I can point to directly?

[Denise Hazelwood]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I'm sorry, Denise, but this is inaccurate. The gray smear Jenkins assumed to mark an entrance location was just above the ear on the side of the head

From Jenkin’s book:

“Dr. Pierre A. Fink and Dr. Humes started examining the head wounds. They found a small wound on the right side of the head in the temporal area just forward and slightly above the right ear. The small hole (wound) was rounded and about the size of the tip of one’s little finger. There appeared to be graying around the margins of the wound, but it was difficult to see because the wound was in the hair line. Dr. Fink speculated that the gray material might have come from a bullet. During the examination of the temple wound, Dr. Humes was called to the gallery to talk to one of the people that had come into the morgue with him and who seemed to be directing the autopsy. I later was told this was Dr. George G. Burkley (Admiral), the President’s personal physician. Dr. Humes returned to the table and immediately directed Dr. Fink away from the small wound in the temple to the large posterior head wound. The temple wound was abandoned and never returned to that night. Drs. Humes and Fink turned their attention to the large posterior head wound and began to examine its extent and boundaries. After the examination of the large posterior, occipital-parietal head wound began, Dr. Humes noticed an area of connected scalp lacerations, along the top of the head that extended forward almost parallel to the midline just past the coronal suture. They extended almost to the frontal bone of the skull. They appeared to have been surgically altered. This prompted Dr. Humes to ask someone in the gallery if there had been any surgery done on the head in Dallas. He was told that there had been no surgery on the head in Dallas. Some of these tears in the scalp appeared to be extended laterally along the top of the head. This could have occurred when the bone underneath was fractured and expanded from the force created by the passage of the bullet, but the lacerations seemed to be neater, cleaner, less random and more directional than the other lacerations in the area as if they had been surgically connected. The posterior head wound will be discussed in more detail later.”

— At The Cold Shoulder of History: The Chilling Story of a 21-year old Navy Hospital Corpsman Who Stood at the Shoulder of JFK during the Bethesda Autopsy by James Curtis Jenkins, William Matson Law
https://a.co/cIs5Di3
 

Note that Jenkins is referring to 2 wounds: the “temple” wound (which is a reference to the temporal bone area, where he placed his small wound) and the larger “posterior” wound. Then there were the scalp “lacerations” or tears, which were not associated with missing bone underneath. So while the lacerations apparently extended into the frontal bone area (and “may have been surgically connected”—I.e., the result of surgery rather than a bullet), the intact bone that was apparently in place underneath the lacerations indicates that there was no blowout in this area—just torn scalp.

[Tom Gram]

5 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

I disagree with most of this, Tom, and that surprises me.  You posted this at about the same time I posted my piece that sits above it,  So I'm assuming you hadn't read what I said beforehand.  So a request.  Can you read my post about alteration and respond to it? 

 

In the meantime I'd like to respond to a few things you say here, with one caveat.  While I think there *is* clear and pretty convincing *physical* evidence of alteration, that's not what I want to focus on here.  I think what we have learned about the travels of the film that weekend and thereafter, and by whom they were accomplished, particularly its trip to the CIA's then secret lab, Hawkeye Works, establishes a strong case for alteration.  At the very least it requires an alternative explanation, if alteration wasn't the purpose, which as far as I know nobody has tried. 

 

Some comments:

 

TG: Anything is possible, and I wouldn’t be surprised if capability did exist to edit the film in 1963, but I’ve never seen a credible demonstration of how it would’ve been done on an in-camera original Kodak film in the required time frame. 

 

RO:  What is the "required time frame"?  The second set of briefing boards that now reside at NARA were not finished when Homer McMahon left Sunday night. He told Horne  some frames he prepared for the boards are no longer on it while things he didn't do are. We don't know when the boards were finished or who did the additional work. Likewise with the film, which was out of sight for a long time. Everything did not have to be done between the time the film arrived at Hawkeye Works and was then back at NPIC.   

 

TG: As it stands, barring a full-scale reopening of the case, no-one is going to get a chance to perform a forensic examination of the original Z-film. Period. There is currently zero physical evidence that the film was altered, and the argument that the alleged alterations failed miserably since the film still convinced the public of conspiracy is compelling. 

 

RO:  The argument that the alterations failed and the film still showed evidence of a conspiracy does *not* mean that no alterations were tried, or that the extant Z film is the original.  It just means the alterations failed. We can also deduce that they failed because the CIA had Life magazine go back to Zapruder that Sunday and buy the full rights to the film so it could be buried for 12 years while the Oswald story took hold. 

 

No one is going to get a chance to forensically examine the original Z film because it no longer exists after the alteration.

 

TG:  I would support a forensic exam by objective experts, but until then, in my opinion, attempting to argue Z-film alteration based on perceived anomalies and ambiguous witness statements is a waste of time. Until someone comes up with actual proof of alteration, the film can and should be assumed authentic. Without new evidence, no one is going to be convinced of alteration who isn’t already convinced - certainly no one in a position make actual progress on the JFK case.

 

RO:  The claim of alteration does not depend solely on forensic evidence as I said.  Nor is it based on "perceived anomalies  and ambiguous witness statements" 

 

TG:  As a side note, though I disagree with him on many topics, some quite strongly, this is where I see the most value in Pat’s work on the medical evidence. If Pat is correct that the extant medical evidence and Z-film can used to prove conspiracy to a respectable standard, that is a much more compelling argument for someone in a position to reinvestigate the case than any alteration theory. The vast majority of reasonable people would dismiss the popular alteration-based conspiracy theories as insane without hard evidence, which currently doesn’t exist. If Pat’s argument could be used to convince someone with access that JFK was shot twice in the head for example, that could lead to real, measurable progress vs. arguing the same crap over and over on Internet forums.

 

RO:  The argument that JFK was hit by two close together shots in the head can indeed be a game changer, imo.  Did you see the presentation on that at Duquesne a few months ago by the Thompson group?  One of the most important parts was when they talked about the bone and tissue that hit one of the cops riding behind and to the left of JFK with such force he thought initially that he had been shot. They abandoned the Z film to show this, which had been the heart of their presentation, and diagrammed it. *Because the extent Z film doesn't show it.*

 

The Z film doesn't show the limo slowed a lot or stopped either even though so many folks said they saw that. But there is a showing of one of the cops riding up beside the limo and then receding back again.

 

TG:  My point is that if our goal is to better understand the history of the JFK assassination - which it should be - or make actual progress toward reopening the case, alternate theories should be embraced, not rejected and ridiculed, especially conservative theories that a non-JFK conspiracy nut may find compelling. You never know who might be paying attention.

 

RO: This point goes for the Z film alteration as well, doesn't it?  One thing to ponder about that is if alteration was done that weekend it had to be done under the direction of the CIA. Only they could have had access to their own facilities at NPIC and Hawkeye Works, and off course they had every reason to alter the Z film.

 

 

I’ve never found the chain of custody argument very convincing. What evidence is there that the original film was even at NPIC/Hawkeye Works that weekend? I’ve read some contradictory reports on this so I’m genuinely curious. Do we know for sure it wasn’t one of the Secret Service copies? Do we have a clear chain of custody on those copies?

Some guy saying they processed the original film 30 years later isn’t really enough. Is there more than that, like a contemporaneous document? I’m clearly not an expert on this issue. Maybe that’s because I’m admittedly a bit biased, but I think these are reasonable questions. 

I’ve never found the witnesses who remembered different frames decades after the fact like Brugioni very convincing either. Memories can change. 

Other than those few ARRB witness statements I don’t recall seeing any evidence suggesting that anything nefarious was done to the film that weekend. It’s been inferred that a second set of briefing boards was prepared using an altered film, or something along those lines, but how do we know that someone didn’t just want two different teams to study the film independently to compare the results? Is that not also a plausible explanation for why the film could’ve been sent to Hawkeye Works? 

Put simply, without a forensic examination of the original film, I’m not sure where any additional evidence in support of alteration is going to come from at this point. That’s why I think research efforts are better served elsewhere. An exception would be those pursuing actual, verifiable forensic evidence, because that’s the only thing that I think would convince a majority of researchers and normal people that the film is inauthentic. 

There’s a reason many conspiracy inclined researchers are skeptical of Z-film alteration, myself included. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I’ve never seen anything even approaching that level. 

Maybe I haven’t looked hard enough. I don’t doubt that the government would alter a home movie if it was deemed a national security threat, and a film proving conspiracy in the JFK case would definitely qualify. I also suspect that the technology existed to do so in 1963. I just find the evidence and arguments for authenticity a lot more compelling than the alternative.

I do have an open mind about it, to an extent, but until I see legitimately compelling evidence that the film was tampered with I will continue to be skeptical. I’m probably mostly biased from rolling my eyes at all the Rorschach test blurry anomaly spotting over the years that has been presented as “proof” of alteration. That junk has conditioned me to think that any pro-alteration analysis is going to range anywhere from speculative to ridiculous, at best. 

If you have some recommended documents or other primary source material on this topic I will check them out and give an honest opinion. If you wanted to make the case for an altered Z-film to a skeptic, what evidence would you tell them to look at? I always respect your opinions and do agree with you a good chunk of the time, so I’d like to see what you have on this. 

Edited June 8 by Tom Gram

[Ron Bulman]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018):

(Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in th morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell performed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning."

I pretty much agree with everything I've read by Horne, Mantik and Chesser, much less than many.  But I still wonder if the pre autopsy surgery happened in the training facility behind the morgue. 

[Denise Hazelwood]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I'm sorry, Denise, but this is inaccurate. The gray smear Jenkins assumed to mark an entrance location was just above the ear on the side of the head. When Jenkins pointed out the hole to Law he was pointing out where there was an absence of scalp and skull when he first saw the body. This isn't what people want to believe, but this is what he said.

You're right about my interpretation of the (2nd) photo being mis-matched to the full text of the sentence from which the caption was taken. I went back to look at the William Matson Law book In the Eye of History and the James Jenkins’ + William Mason Law book At the Cold Shoulder of History. I may have been mistaken about what the 2nd photograph apparently shows, but in the text, Jenkins described two head wounds (an “entrance”--actually, my AR-15 exit--above the right ear, and a “blow-out” exit at the back of the head), plus the shallow back wound. He didn't see the EOP entrance below his blow-out, but admitted that it might have been present. He also apparently didn't see the forehead wound that Dr. Charles Crenshaw described.

So here is my “deep dive” into Jenkins' statements and the current debate…

I think the root of the Jenkins debate in this thread are some apparent differences between the pictures that William Matson Law published in his book In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence, and the text of what Jenkins described.

Here is a scan of those pictures published by Law and their captions (my apologies for the quality, but I scanned these from my iPhone Kindle version of the book by placing my phone on my scanner).

 

— In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence by William Matson Law

I think these pictures are somewhat problematic for two reasons: 1) Jenkins is being photographed from the front, even though he is indicating the back of his head, thus making the pictures somewhat difficult to interpret; and 2)  Jenkins is apparently placing his wounds by feel, not by looking at his hand placement, whereas at the autopsy, his input was visual. I think a kinesthetic rather than visual processing difference might account for some minor wound misplacement, as his pictoral placements don’t completely match his words.

Here is the text from which the picture captions apparently derive, and my comments:

Pictures 1 and 2:

Quote

Jenkins: It would be difficult to estimate because a lot of the hair was still attached to the skull fragments–the skull was fragmented. But I would say that if you take your hand and you put the heel of your thumb behind your ear, that would cover the basic part of the wound (1) 

with the open hole approximately in that area (2).

In the text sentence, it is not entirely clear if Jenkins is describing one single wound, or two separate wounds, so it is entirely possible that pictures 1 and 2 are actually placing the same wound.

In Picture 1, Jenkins is putting “the heel of (his) thumb behind (his) ear.” The blow-out wound location was behind the ear. I think that if Jenkins’ head was turned to the left in the photo, we would see his hand better, and it would more clearly show his wound placement. 

In Picture 2, if Jenkins had been photographed from the rear or from the right side, the picture would probably be clearer. From the text, Jenkins might possibly be describing to be describing a smaller hole within an area of skull fractures and pieces that were clinging to the scalp, that when laid across the larger skull along with other pieces of skull brought in during the autopsy, left only a smaller hole. However, Picture 2 seems to indicate an area  above, or at least at the top of, the larger hole of picture 1.

It may also be that Picture 1 was meant to represent both “the basic part of the wound” and “the open hole” as the entire text sentence implies.

I don't think Law took his pictures of Jenkins while the interview was taking place, but probably afterward Law asked Jenkins to go back after the interview was over, so that he could take pictures of wound locations, asking "Where was the basic part of the wound?" and "Where was the open hole?" and Jenkins interpreted "open hole" (out of context of the complete sentence) to be his "above the ear entrance," which is how I interpreted Picture 2, albeit placing his "entrance" somewhat too high, due to the kinesthetic/visual difference, and the fact that the text is describing "back" of the head blow-out while the photos are from the front. That's why Hofeling's post of the YouTube videos of Jenkins indicating the back-of-the-head blow-out wound--as well as the postings of the Robinson diagram with its triangle wound location (matching Jenkins' above-the-ear "entrance" wound), and  and Zediker skull model marked by Jenkins showing both the back of the head blow-out and above-the-ear-"entrance" wound--are so important. 

Picture 3:

The full text from which Picture 3's caption comes is this:

Quote

 

Law: The depositions of Dr. Humes and Boswell have been released by the Records Review Board. I believe it was Dr. Boswell who said they made decisions that night of where the bullet entered and exited. Would you say that’s true? 

Jenkins: To my knowledge, no. Again, like I said, I came out of the autopsy that night and I was sure that the bullet entered the right side of the head and exited in this area (touching the back of his head above his right ear), and that there was a bullet wound around the scapula in the back.

 

From the text, Picture 3 is essentially a repeat of the same area as Picture 1 (as picture 2 might or might not be), indicating the same blow-out area. Again, we are given a picture taken from the front, while the text says “touching the back of his head above his right ear.” That text is confusing because “above the right ear” is the side of the head, not the “back.” However, Jenkins is probably trying to indicate a height location when he says "above the ear" rather than an actual “above the ear” location for his blow-out exit. Confusingly, “above the ear” is also Jenkins’ entrance at “the right side of the head,” as other text from the Law book shows.

Again, the perspective of the picture is confusing, describing the back of the head while showing a picture taken from the front. And again, there may be some kinesthetic vs. visual confusion on Jenkins’ part.

Notice also that in the text excerpt, Jenkins is describing 3 wounds: 1) a bullet that entered the right side of the head, 2) an exit at the back of the head above the level of the ear (the blow-out), and 3) the shallow back wound.

What is missing from the collection of Law’s pictures of Jenkins is Jenkins’ “right side of the head” entrance. Herein lies my own potential misinterpretation of Picture 2, which I had originally assumed was his “right side” and “above the ear” entrance at the side of the head (rather than the hole remaining within the blow-out of the fragments that clung to the scalp, etc.)

In the excerpt from the Law book below, Jenkins places the entrance for his "behind the ear" blow-out exit at “right side of the head just above the ear, a little forward.” 

Quote

 

Jenkins: I would like history to really understand what was going on, as much inside that morgue as in the nation, in the political arena. I am convinced that John Kennedy was shot at least two times by two separate people, and possibly a third time.

Relating to the wound in the back-the entrance wound that I feel was at the right side of the head just above the ear, a little bit forward, and exited in the large expanse at the back. The other wound from the back of the head, which has been reported (e.g., photo 19) as I said, right around the base of the skull or the nuchal line, I never saw that. I'm not saying it wasn't there, but I never saw it.

 

Above the ear and “a little forward” for Jenkins’ entrance is somewhat confusing, given that “above the ear” at the backof the head is his exit hole. It’s also important to note that Jenkins never saw the EOP entrance described by the autopsy doctors, but qualifies that it might have been there, but he just didn’t happen to see it.

So here are various relevant excerpts from Law's In the Eye of History and the Law + Jenkins’ book At the Cold Shoulder of History:

1)   Describing Jenkins’ “above the ear” “entrance” (Denise: my AR-15 exit😞

Note, Jenkins’ “above the ear entrance” appears to be the same wound as FBI Agent Francis O’Neill’s above the ear exit. See https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md86/html/md86_0011a.htm, although Jenkins describes the wound as “a little forward” of above the ear.

From In the Eye of History:

Quote

Jenkins: …Relating to the wound in the back-the entrance wound that I feel was at the right side of the head just above the ear, a little bit forward, and exited in the large expanse at the back.

Quote

 

Jenkins: …I can remember the positions of the pathologists. [Humes and Boswell] were both standing at the head of the table looking down on the head and Dr. Finck was closest to me. I was at his right shoulder. They were speculating about a lot of things. 

Jenkins: Well, about a hole actually above the right ear. The speculation was that it had some gray substance on it and of course the speculation at that point in time that it was from a bullet. 

Law: Did they ever discuss whether it was the metal from the bullet? Could they tell if it had come from the front? Did they discuss a frontal entry? Did they make a decision? 

Jenkins: No, I think–from my assumption–that it was an entry wound. 

Law: In the side of the head?

Jenkins: Yes. …

 

Quote

 Jenkins: … You would have at least fragments where it hit a rib or bones. Like I said, there was some discussion as to whether some grayish type of matter that was on the skull, here on the right side (pointing to his head above the right ear), were actually particles of a bullet or not.

 From At the Cold Shoulder of History:

Quote

 Dr. Pierre A. Fink and Dr. Humes started examining the head wounds. They found a small wound on the right side of the head in the temporal area just forward and slightly above the right ear. The small hole (wound) was rounded and about the size of the tip of one’s little finger. There appeared to be graying around the margins of the wound, but it was difficult to see because the wound was in the hair line. Dr. Fink speculated that the gray material might have come from a bullet. During the examination of the temple wound, Dr. Humes was called to the gallery to talk to one of the people that had come into the morgue with him and who seemed to be directing the autopsy. I later was told this was Dr. George G. Burkley (Admiral), the President’s personal physician. Dr. Humes returned to the table and immediately directed Dr. Fink away from the small wound in the temple to the large posterior head wound. The temple wound was abandoned and never returned to that night. Drs. Humes and Fink turned their attention to the large posterior head wound and began to examine its extent and boundaries. After the examination of the large posterior, occipital-parietal head wound began, Dr. Humes noticed an area of connected scalp lacerations, along the top of the head that extended forward almost parallel to the midline just past the coronal suture. They extended almost to the frontal bone of the skull. They appeared to have been surgically altered. This prompted Dr. Humes to ask someone in the gallery if there had been any surgery done on the head in Dallas. He was told that there had been no surgery on the head in Dallas. Some of these tears in the scalp appeared to be extended laterally along the top of the head. This could have occurred when the bone underneath was fractured and expanded from the force created by the passage of the bullet, but the lacerations seemed to be neater, cleaner, less random and more directional than the other lacerations in the area as if they had been surgically connected. The posterior head wound will be discussed in more detail later.

 From At the Cold Shoulder of History (Dr. Michael Chesser’s chapter):

Quote

(per Chesser)

There is x-ray evidence of a small bony defect in the right temporal bone, in an area in which James Jenkins saw a round wound with gray margins. I saw this on the autopsy photograph of the right side of the head. If this were an entry wound, then that implies 3 shots striking the skull. 

2)   Describing Jenkins’ “back of the head” blow-out: 

From In the Eye of History:

Quote

 

Law: The depositions of Dr. Humes and Boswell have been released by the Records Review Board. I believe it was Dr. Boswell who said they made decisions that night of where the bullet entered and exited. Would you say that’s true? 

Jenkins: To my knowledge, no. Again, like I said, I came out of the autopsy that night and I was sure that the bullet entered the right side of the head and exited in this area (touching the back of his head above his right ear), and that there was a bullet wound around the scapula in the back.

 

Quote

Jenkins: …Relating to the wound in the back-the entrance wound that I feel was at the right side of the head just above the ear, a little bit forward, and exited in the large expanse at the back.

Quote

 

Jenkins: I think that, to clarify it, I think there was probably enough scalp and tissue and hair that they could’ve covered everything with it, but they would not have had a bone basis. 

Law: So even though the bone was missing–

Jenkins: They would have had to stretch the scalp that was there because there was a hole that was–there was nothing left. It was like, well, getting into the controversy, it was like it had been blown out. 

Law: A blowout in the back of the head? 

Jenkins: Right. And I think that that’s probably part of the bone fragment that had been brought into the autopsy. Law: So, there was a blowout in the back of the head.

Jenkins: I think so.

Law: A curious statement was made by Dr. Humes when the House Select Committee in 1977 asked him about the wound in the head, and he said it had to come in from behind and exited from behind. I’ve never understood that statement. 

 

From At the Cold Shoulder of History:

Quote

(Describing Jenkins' HSCA experience)

There were other times when they would tell me “You couldn’t possibility have seen that” or “You didn’t see that did you?” I told them that my primary focus at the autopsy was directed toward the large posterior head wound. They came back to me with “We interviewed this other individual who was there” (who I knew was Paul O’Connor) and he said that the whole back of the head was blown out and the brain was missing.” I told them again that I was not aware of Paul’s testimony and that I had seen the wound after the scalp was reflected from the skull and that I did not feel that the entire back of the head was blown out. I was asked if I had any notes or pictures that I took from the autopsy. I told them that I had nothing of that nature. “Surely you have notes,” was their response and again I told him that I took no notes or pictures or anything else concerning the autopsy. I really don’t know why Purdy and Kelly thought that I would’ve taken notes or pictures at the autopsy. In retrospect, I probably should have written notes about my experiences that night after I arrived home the following Saturday morning, but I’d been given orders to not talk about or discuss what happened in the morgue that night and I was concerned about the consequences of putting my experience on paper. The discussion continued, and they asked a great deal about the head wound and the body wounds, but they never asked me to describe the wounds to them. They asked me where the head wound was located, and I told them it was located on the right posterior portion of the head in the occipital-parietal area. As the interview continued, the questions became more redundant and condescending. Finally, I told them I had nothing else to offer and the interview was ended. I left the interview feeling that it had been a waste of time because Purdy’s and Kelly’s interest was directed more toward confirming their preconceived opinions that the Warren commission was correct and that I was wrong. Years later, I was sent a copy of the Kelly/ Purdy report as presented to the House Select Committee and a copy of the notes that they took from the interview. The report seemed to be a composite of things that I said intermingled with those that Paul O’Connor had said. It seemed to have no congruence of thought or form. I felt that the material in the report was presented in such a way that sometimes it was misleading and often times seem to support conclusions that it was not meant to support. It often avoided or ignored material that appeared to be controversial. Below you will find a copy of the official report of my deposition presented by Andrew Purdy to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. August 29, 1977”

 

Quote

 

I think it is only fair to say that my given measurements 2.5 to 3 inches (5 to 7 cm) by 1.5 to 2 inches (3 to 5 cm) of the wound, missing bone and scalp area, are approximations and not measured ones, even though the difference between 3 inches and 5 inches is obvious to most people. My given measurements also approximated more closely the diminutions given by Dr. McClelland at Parkland as he observed the wound in the emergency room than those listed in the official autopsy report.

(insert McClelland drawing showing large wound at the back of the head)

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. The area shown was the area where both bone and scalp were missing. While some bone was separated from the scalp as it was being refracted, you could still readily see the true area where there was an absence of bone and scalp. My original thought when I first saw this drawing was that the wound appeared to be a little more caudal, toward the neck, and lateral than the wound seen at autopsy. This may be perception on my part due to the slightly turned head in the drawing. The position of the wound in the drawing correlates well with the wound that I saw at autopsy after the scalp was retracted.

 

Quote

 

(insert drawings by Dr. Charles Crenshaw and nurse Audrey Bell)

 … The above placement of wounds by Dr. Crenshaw and Ms. Audrey Bell for the record review board demonstrates a variance that one can see as individuals review and remember specific events. The top two placements of the head wound by Dr. Crenshaw more closely correlate with the location of the wound seen at autopsy after the scalp was reflected. Though there seems to be a conflict between the placement at the rear of the skull and the attempt to place the wound on the lateral or side of the skull. I believe this conflict is due to the difficulty of observing an irregular wound on the posterior portion of the skull and trying to relate that to its appearance from the lateral view. The bottom drawings are those in which Ms. Audrey Bell attempted to place the head wounds. While the drawing on the left that depicts the head, wound appears to be more caudal, toward the bottom of the head, than that seen at autopsy. I believe the conflict described above is relative to the same difficulty that accounted for the conflict by Dr. Crenshaw. While Ms. Bell’s placement of the wound at the back of the head appears to be lower than that seen in autopsy it is difficult to place a wound that is primarily in the posterior of the skull from the lateral view. The difficulty arises due to the skull being rounded and that the wound would probably have a different appearance from the lateral (side) view.

 

 

Quote

After Dr. Boswell and I had finished the autopsy of the body, I saw that Dr. Humes and Dr. Fink had retracted the scalp back away from the head wound, so that the full extent of the head wound could be seen clearly. I could tell the major portion of the area which looked like the wound going forward was not actually part of the original wound of missing bone and scalp. It just intersected with it. It looked as if it was a fracture line going forward slightly past the coronal suture almost to the frontal bone. The coronal suture runs across the skull in front of one ear to the other ear and separates the frontal bone from the parietal bones. You could see that the area where the bone was actually missing was in the parietal-occipital area in the back of the head and extended downward touching the temporal area. The wound was not a totally circular wound. It had a ragged convex top with a rectangular/ trapezoid shape tapering off to the right, when viewed from the back of the head, at the bottom was a kind of a tail. There were areas where you could tell that the bone had been chipped out on the surface. When Humes asked about “surgery to the head at Parkland” he was referring to the area on the top of the head where the scalp was holding the fractured skull together, the fractured skull was still adhered to the scalp and there was a laceration in this area that was connected to the top of the wound and ran forward almost to the frontal bone. The laceration seemed to consist of multiple tears in the scalp connected by small neat, clean incisions. The fractured bone pieces that were still attached to the scalp, had separated from the scalp when the scalp was reflected. This made the original wound of missing bone and scalp appear to be larger than when I first saw it. This may account for the differences between the size of the wound seen at Parkland and the size of the wound listed in the official autopsy report. One could take the skull and open it up on the right side. It was as if you could take the skull and fold it down. It was very ragged. Some of the fractures of the skull had actually caused tears in the scalp itself but had not separated from the scalp. This long laceration along the fracture lines seemed to be responsible for the gaping seen when the head was unwrapped. The comments I remember from Humes and Boswell were “the skull is really malleable.” You could move the bones on the right side of the head around with your hand. Humes continued his inspection of the head with Dr. Fink.

Quote

 

 (Transcribed from hypnosis session)

Now, they are lifting the body up for-I can see the wound on the side. It’s fairly extensive. It’s fairly high in the back of the head. Really the gaping starts toward the center, back behind the ear. It’s a lot of scalp and tissue. It’s being held together by-a lot of the bones were held together by scalp. The scalp is ragged and the bones in that area…. it’s exposed the brain. The brain’s exposed [unintelligible] like it is macerated. The skull is exploded [unintelligible] the tissue and scalp are kind of laid back.

 

Quote

 (Transcribed from hypnosis session)

Now, he is working on the head, he has filled the head cavity with the material he used on the body. Closing the scalp as best he can, he is putting a piece of the same type of material over the area [unintelligible]. All this is sutured up, he is washing the hair. S: What part of the head can’t be covered, what part of the head–J: It’s the area in the back of the head, a little high, it’s right above the occipital area. Part of the parietal through occipital it’s kind of in that area. He just seems to have put a mesh or something over it. S: How big of area is it? J: It’s a little larger than a silver dollar, it’s kind of hard to say how large it is, because it is not round. At one end there’s a sliver, seems to be a sliver of bone, it covers all of this back plate, there is material underneath, scalp, and all this scalp coming back and then securing it with sutures. Then, he is washing the hair, and he’s actually shampooing the hair. Now, he is molding the head by pressing on the head, on the [unintelligible] of the head…”

3)   Related to autopsy photo alteration:

From In the Eye of History :

Quote

Jenkins: I’ve looked at probably most of the theories on trajectory that have been published. To me they defy mathematical projections and probabilities, and physics, actually. And there are things that I have looked at over the years, these photographs for one. I have been asked basically the same thing: “Do you think those things were doctored?” I don’t know. It would only be conjecture on my part, but I know there are some differences from what I remember and what these photographs show.”

Quote

 

Law: I’ll just show you one more (photo 4). A lot has been made of this particular photograph because the hair looks clean and shiny, and everything I’ve ever read or talked about with people said it was bloody. 

Jenkins: It was bloody. This is the flap (pointing to the avulsed skull bone over the right ear). 

Law: Okay. 

Jenkins: That seems about right because it actually would’ve been pulled back on to the skull. Law: So we’re not seeing all of that, are we? Jenkins: No. 

Law: That’s just a piece we’re seeing in the picture there. It would cover more of an area than it seems to in that picture. Is that what you’re saying? 

Jenkins: The flap would have filled in this area right in here (pointing to the area in the back of the skull behind the flap). 

Law: Right. 

Jenkins: I think we’re just seeing the flap as it’s protruding out. The thing that I don’t understand is that this area would’ve been where the wound was (pointing to the back of the head). 

Law: That was, at that point, a large gaping wound? 

Jenkins: That was a large gaping wound. 

Law: From this picture (photo 4) you don’t see that. 

Jenkins: No, I don’t. 

Law: Was there enough scalp back there? It looks like someone is pulling that forward. 

Jenkins: They probably could have picked up some of the scalp and filled it in, but there was enough missing. I guess they could have stretched the scalp that was there without the bone and covered it, but this was an area without bone; [it] was gone. This was actually the hole. 

Law: That was actually the hole? 

Jenkins: Right. That was actually the hole (pointing to the rear right side of the head in photo 4),”

 

Quote

 

Jenkins: Well, you can see what I was describing before. This is all tissue, skin and so forth with hair attached to it (pointing to the extruded material). There was really only a portion that was gone in the brain, about this size in the skull (indicating an area of about two and a half inches in diameter with his fingers). 

Law: Missing from the brain? 

Jenkins: That was the hole in the skull. It was in this area (touching the rear right side of his head). I think several other people have corroborated that. I think this (photo 3) was actually taken with the skin, the tissue, and the fragmented skull opened up. 

Law: Would it make up part of the so-called flap, this part hanging down? 

Jenkins: No, the flap itself was an area over the ear, I remember, and it was kind of–well, actually it was kind of just flapped out because it was totally broken from the scalp and the skull.

 

From At the Cold Shoulder of History :

Quote

 I know that there are photos that exist (Fox photos) showing what is purportedly the back of the president’s head. The back of the head appears to be intact and the hair looks clean and shiny, freshly washed, but no pictures were taken after the autopsy ended or during the time the mortician was working on the body.

I hope this helps!

-Denise

[Charles Blackmon]

19 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

What credible evidence is there that the alleged black patch is not a natural shadow? Has anyone attempted to refute this study, which concluded that the shadow is “physically plausible” and “consistent with the 3D geometry of the scene and sub position”?

https://farid.berkeley.edu/downloads/publications/tr10a.pdf

 

The "black patch" looks to me like a black area and not just "shadow". Notice Connally's hair has more definition than JFK's. That Berkely study did not prove it was or was not either a black patch or a shadow. I am hoping someone on this forum with the necessary technical acumen will chime in and give us something more to consider. 

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I pretty much agree with everything I've read by Horne, Mantik and Chesser, much less than many.  But I still wonder if the pre autopsy surgery happened in the training facility behind the morgue. 

James Jenkins is open-minded about pre-autopsy surgery of some kind being held elsewhere. He is an accommodating guy and doesn't want to upset those studying the case. But he could not abide Horne's claiming he was kept out of the morgue for an hour and a half after the body had arrived. He knew that wasn't true. 

As an exercise, let's move the proposed malfeasance to Parkland. Some (seriously wrong people, IMO) have ventured that Perry finished JFK off at Parkland. Now, let's say McClelland got wind of this and said "I know this didn't happen because I was standing right there." And then these theorists said "Well, McClelland's memory is faulty--he actually came in 20 minutes after the body arrived--after Perry had done his dirty work."

Well, if something like this occurred, virtually every JFK researcher would write the "Perry did it" theory off as fantasy, and throw it on the rubbish heap. But that hasn't happened with Horne. And there are a number of reasons for this, IMO.

1. Horne wrote a detailed 4-volume series on the assassination, and some (most) people are impressed with such things. The sheer size and detail of the work leads them to think there must be something to it. We saw a similar response to Bugliosi's book. Those inclined to believe Oswald did it, and even some on the fence, wrote rave reviews about how he'd answered all the questions. When his book had done nothing of the sort... 

2. Since the early days of the research community, there has been an anti-military bias. The Vietnam War was not popular, and people were primed to believe the military was involved. In Horne's theory, the military is central to the plot, super sneaky, and super effective. 

3. The many conflicting interpretations of the photographic evidence and medical evidence has led to frustration, where a large number of researchers have become drawn to the belief the evidence is fake. Well, Horne's theories involve much fakery.

4. Today's political climate, where people are primed to believe everything is fake. 

 

In any event, whatever the reason, Horne's theory appears to be growing in influence. He was presented as the voice of authority in the film JFK: What the Doctors Saw, which received international distribution, and which will serve as an introduction to the case for millions of newbies in the years to come.

Now in the film Horne claimed James Jenkins saw a bullet hole high on Kennedy's forehead, which simply wasn't true. He even pointed out the supposed location for the cameras...and it was right where Michael Chesser has recently claimed he found a bullet hole on the x-rays.

Well, this set off an alarm bell to my inner conspiracy theorist--that these guys are engaged in a hoax. And I said some negative things about the film in an email group comprising some scholars and journalists. And this led to an invite from Jeff Morley for me to write a more restrained commentary for his website JFK Facts. And I did so. I was told at the time that mine was one of two negative reviews for the film published on Jeff's site..

Now, within a week or two, someone joined this forum in full attack mode. And I assumed this person was familiar with my negative review of JFK: What the Doctors Saw, and had come here to silence me. And that he was quite possibly not acting on his own. 

Now...I could be wrong about this. And I could be wrong about Horne's intentions when he lied about Jenkins...

But I have yet to see Horne put out a statement in which he admitted he'd had a brain fart, and had told a falsehood about Jenkins, and that Jenkins had never actually claimed to see a bullet hole high on Kennedy's forehead...And I've never seen a post or comment by Horne's supporters acknowledging he'd lied about Jenkins (or, at the very least, grossly misrepresented what he'd said). 

So my paranoia at this time seems justified...

 

 

Edited June 8 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

 

You're right about my interpretation of the (2nd) photo being mis-matched to the full text of the sentence from which the caption was taken. I went back to look at the William Matson Law book In the Eye of History and the James Jenkins’ + William Mason Law book At the Cold Shoulder of History. I may have been mistaken about what the 2nd photograph apparently shows, but in the text, Jenkins described two head wounds (an “entrance”--actually, my AR-15 exit--above the right ear, and a “blow-out” exit at the back of the head), plus the shallow back wound. He didn't see the EOP entrance below his blow-out, but admitted that it might have been present. He also apparently didn't see the forehead wound that Dr. Charles Crenshaw described.

So here is my “deep dive” into Jenkins' statements and the current debate…

I think the root of the Jenkins debate in this thread are some apparent differences between the pictures that William Matson Law published in his book In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence, and the text of what Jenkins described.

Here is a scan of those pictures published by Law and their captions (my apologies for the quality, but I scanned these from my iPhone Kindle version of the book by placing my phone on my scanner).

 

 

 

— In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence by William Matson Law

I think these pictures are somewhat problematic for two reasons: 1) Jenkins is being photographed from the front, even though he is indicating the back of his head, thus making the pictures somewhat difficult to interpret; and 2)  Jenkins is apparently placing his wounds by feel, not by looking at his hand placement, whereas at the autopsy, his input was visual. I think a kinesthetic rather than visual processing difference might account for some minor wound misplacement, as his pictoral placements don’t completely match his words.

Here is the text from which the picture captions apparently derive, and my comments:

Pictures 1 and 2:

In the text sentence, it is not entirely clear if Jenkins is describing one single wound, or two separate wounds, so it is entirely possible that pictures 1 and 2 are actually placing the same wound.

In Picture 1, Jenkins is putting “the heel of (his) thumb behind (his) ear.” The blow-out wound location was behind the ear. I think that if Jenkins’ head was turned to the left in the photo, we would see his hand better, and it would more clearly show his wound placement. 

In Picture 2, if Jenkins had been photographed from the rear or from the right side, the picture would probably be clearer. From the text, Jenkins might possibly be describing to be describing a smaller hole within an area of skull fractures and pieces that were clinging to the scalp, that when laid across the larger skull along with other pieces of skull brought in during the autopsy, left only a smaller hole. However, Picture 2 seems to indicate an area  above, or at least at the top of, the larger hole of picture 1.

It may also be that Picture 1 was meant to represent both “the basic part of the wound” and “the open hole” as the entire text sentence implies.

I don't think Law took his pictures of Jenkins while the interview was taking place, but probably afterward Law asked Jenkins to go back after the interview was over, so that he could take pictures of wound locations, asking "Where was the basic part of the wound?" and "Where was the open hole?" and Jenkins interpreted "open hole" (out of context of the complete sentence) to be his "above the ear entrance," which is how I interpreted Picture 2, albeit placing his "entrance" somewhat too high, due to the kinesthetic/visual difference, and the fact that the text is describing "back" of the head blow-out while the photos are from the front. That's why Hofeling's post of the YouTube videos of Jenkins indicating the back-of-the-head blow-out wound--as well as the postings of the Robinson diagram with its triangle wound location (matching Jenkins' above-the-ear "entrance" wound), and  and Zediker skull model marked by Jenkins showing both the back of the head blow-out and above-the-ear-"entrance" wound--are so important. 

Picture 3:

The full text from which Picture 3's caption comes is this:

From the text, Picture 3 is essentially a repeat of the same area as Picture 1 (as picture 2 might or might not be), indicating the same blow-out area. Again, we are given a picture taken from the front, while the text says “touching the back of his head above his right ear.” That text is confusing because “above the right ear” is the side of the head, not the “back.” However, Jenkins is probably trying to indicate a height location when he says "above the ear" rather than an actual “above the ear” location for his blow-out exit. Confusingly, “above the ear” is also Jenkins’ entrance at “the right side of the head,” as other text from the Law book shows.

Again, the perspective of the picture is confusing, describing the back of the head while showing a picture taken from the front. And again, there may be some kinesthetic vs. visual confusion on Jenkins’ part.

Notice also that in the text excerpt, Jenkins is describing 3 wounds: 1) a bullet that entered the right side of the head, 2) an exit at the back of the head above the level of the ear (the blow-out), and 3) the shallow back wound.

What is missing from the collection of Law’s pictures of Jenkins is Jenkins’ “right side of the head” entrance. Herein lies my own potential misinterpretation of Picture 2, which I had originally assumed was his “right side” and “above the ear” entrance at the side of the head (rather than the hole remaining within the blow-out of the fragments that clung to the scalp, etc.)

In the excerpt from the Law book below, Jenkins places the entrance for his "behind the ear" blow-out exit at “right side of the head just above the ear, a little forward.” 

Above the ear and “a little forward” for Jenkins’ entrance is somewhat confusing, given that “above the ear” at the backof the head is his exit hole. It’s also important to note that Jenkins never saw the EOP entrance described by the autopsy doctors, but qualifies that it might have been there, but he just didn’t happen to see it.

So here are various relevant excerpts from Law's In the Eye of History and the Law + Jenkins’ book At the Cold Shoulder of History:

1)   Describing Jenkins’ “above the ear” “entrance” (Denise: my AR-15 exit😞

Note, Jenkins’ “above the ear entrance” appears to be the same wound as FBI Agent Francis O’Neill’s above the ear exit. See https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md86/html/md86_0011a.htm, although Jenkins describes the wound as “a little forward” of above the ear.

From In the Eye of History:

 From At the Cold Shoulder of History:

 From At the Cold Shoulder of History (Dr. Michael Chesser’s chapter):

2)   Describing Jenkins’ “back of the head” blow-out: 

From In the Eye of History:

From At the Cold Shoulder of History:

 

 

3)   Related to autopsy photo alteration:

From In the Eye of History :

From At the Cold Shoulder of History :

I hope this helps!

-Denise

A couple of quick points. (I'm off to a museum and don't have time for a detailed response, but saw a comment that I could give a quick response to.)

The 1998 interview with Law was taped, and the images in Law's book come from the tape. I either had this tape or found it online, because I did a quick screen grab of where his hand was located when he described the hole, and put it on my website. Someone compared that image to what Law put in his book and claimed I was lying or some such thing, because the hand in Law's photo was maybe an inch or so further to the back (but still not on the far back of the head). 

In any event, while looking for this tape/DVD, I did find a DVD in my collection which included the second half of this interview, in which Jenkins once again points out the location, but also points out the SIZE of the hole as first observed. And I share this below. (Long story short...Jenkins' recollections are toxic to Horne's theory, which holds that the entire top of Kennedy's head had been removed in pre-autopsy surgery before Jenkins saw the body...)

 

 

 

Edited June 8 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

On 6/7/2024 at 11:42 AM, Tom Gram said:

There is currently zero physical evidence that the [Zapruder] film was altered...

 

But there is an overwhelming amount of corroborating circumstantial evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. That it is corroborating makes it more valuable than a single piece of physical evidence.

Nearly every witness (approximately 40 of them) said they saw the gaping wound on the back of the head. Even if every one of them was wrong (which is what anti-alterationists believe), what are the odds that all 40 would agree on a wound location? Close to zero!

That would be like like throwing, say, 45 coins and having 40 of them come up heads.

And yet the witnesses DID agree on a location! The back of the head!

How is that possible? The only possible way 40 witnesses could agree on the same location is if they were all right.

 

Having said that, I will note that Tom is wrong in what I quoted of him above. There actually IS physical evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. The logarithmic scan of the film reveals an artificially darkened patch on the back of JFK's head. Which is quite valid proof that the film was altered. Though the circumstantial proof I described above is actually stronger.

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The 1998 interview with Law was taped, and the images in Law's book come from the tape. I either had this tape or found it online, because I did a quick screen grab of where his hand was located when he described the hole, and put it on my website. Someone compared that image to what Law put in his book and claimed I was lying or some such thing, because the hand in Law's photo was maybe an inch or so further to the back (but still not on the far back of the head). 

In any event, while looking for this tape/DVD, I did find a DVD in my collection which included the second half of this interview, in which Jenkins once again points out the location, but also points out the SIZE of the hole as first observed. And I share this below. (Long story short...Jenkins' recollections are toxic to Horne's theory, which holds that the entire top of Kennedy's head had been removed in pre-autopsy surgery before Jenkins saw the body...)

Knowing that the interview was taped explains a lot of things, like why Jenkins was shown from the front when indicating the back of his head. Your picture indicating the size of the hole jives with the text of it being about the size of a silver dollar. However, I also think that Jenkins missed some stuff below that hole. He admittedly didn’t see the EOP entrance low in the skull described by the autopsy doctors, which was the area where the Harper Fragment came from, so I think Jenkins missed the HF hole (the most likely explanation, given the F8 “Mystery” photo and his not seeing anything EOP related but also not denying that something was there) because he only saw the back of the head near the top. That, or the HF (missing in the F8 photo) was returned to Dealey Plaza after the autopsy (which seems weird to me, but bullet evidence was moved around at Parkland, so…maybe). So a silver dollar size hole near the top of the head in the back, with multiple skull fragments clinging to the scalp, and a larger HF hole closer to the bottom of the skull. And assuming that the fragments clinging to the skull were peeled off before the F8 picture was taken. How to reconcile that with the Parkland doctors’ “orange” size hole? Jenkins’ remaining hole was after the separate skull fragments were brought into the autopsy, presumably (along with the fragments sticking to the scalp) filling in the empty area in F8 above the HF outline, and most of the other holes.

But the blowout was at the back of the head, which indicates that the (first, because it caused the most fragmentation and fractures, per Puppe’s rule) shot came from the front.