The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

On page 93 of In the Eye of History, Jenkins shows Law the size of the hole in the skull as first observed (as opposed to the size of the hole after the scalp was peeled back and shattered skull fell to the table--which we can only assume is what he was showing in the HSCA drawing.)

 

Dear readers,

(And Pat... if he will listen to reason. But he probably won't.)

What Pat is saying here is that Jenkins did indeed point to a hole in the rear of the head. Except that the hole only became present when the scalp was reflected (peeled back) and fragmented bone from the back of the skull fell to the table.

Yet again Pat is wrong. The truth is that both the scalp and skull fragments were missing from the back of the head, according to Jenkins. But that it was difficult to tell the extent of the wound till after the scalp was reflected.

Here are Jenkins' exact words from his 2018 book:

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.

Pat had to make up the story about the skull fragments falling to the table, because otherwise he'd be admitting that Jenkins placed the gaping wound on the back of the head.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

In presenting a new timeline in 2010 he wrote "Tom Robinson witnesses the President's body removed from the morgue and is told that the autopsy is "being moved" to another location temporarily. His agitation about this was recalled to the HSCA staff 14 years later, in 1977, when he told them that "the body was taken" and that "the body never came."  

Now I didn't remember Robinson's claiming as much so I went back and read his HSCA testimony, and found this...

 

 

So Horne had cherry-picked Robinson's words--what he'd claimed was incorrect--and presented them as Robinson's recollections.

 

Pat,

I don't understand your complaint against Horne. What he wrote in 2010 seems to be consistent with Robinson's HSCA testimony that you posted.

Please explain what Horne did wrong, as you see it.

 

 

[Tom Gram]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Pat,

I don't understand your complaint against Horne. What he wrote in 2010 seems to be consistent with Robinson's HSCA testimony that you posted.

Please explain what Horne did wrong, as you see it.

 

 

You’re kidding right? Robinson was asked about things he’d heard or read about the assassination and autopsy that struck him as incorrect. Horne left out the question and presented Robinson’s answer as his actual recollections. 

That’s really bad. Unless Horne was so blinded by confirmation bias that he didn’t even read the question (did you?) this sure looks like a deliberate misrepresentation of Robinson’s testimony designed to sell Horne’s theory. 

Pat is right. If a LN author did something like this, there would be outrage and articles written about it. This is a good example of something that could be reasonably interpreted as an actual lie, unlike your pointless semantic quibble with Pat that you’re amazingly still defending despite recent events.

However, even though it sure as hell looks like it, we don’t know for sure if Horne did this deliberately. He might have just made an incredibly stupid mistake. Either way, it’s not very flattering to Horne’s credibility. 

Edited June 10 by Tom Gram

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You have a lot of nerve to make such a ridiculous claim! (I'd penalize you for lying again, if I could! Though, of course, I'd give you a chance to correct it first. Like I did last time.)

Thankfully, you can't penalize anybody anymore! It's a beautiful thing (in my OPINION).

[Tom Gram]

12 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

What synonyms for "liar" did you see Pat call Jenkins?

Would you identify where in your post you reported those synonyms?

Would you do so in a small number of straightforward, to-the-point sentences or paragraphs?

I too read that entire tedious post, and did not see one synonym for the word liar. Pat states that Jenkins changed his story under the influence of Chessner.

These are by far the closest statements I could find that could be interpreted as an insinuation that Jenkins’ new position is  something he doesn’t actually believe is true. 

So Jenkins has thrown them a bone, and is now claiming the wound he saw resembled the wound in the drawing AFTER the scalp was reflected. Well, think about it. This is as much as admitting that the wound he saw before the scalp was reflected did not resemble this wound.

It's all gobbledy-gook designed to sell that the wound was on the back of the head, and that witnesses (such as Jenkins and McClelland) share the same recollection.

…

he'd really changed his story to appease those who wanted to believe.

…

There are no synonyms of the word “liar”. 

As you point out, Pat has also clarified what he thinks about Jenkins’ flip-flop: 

James Jenkins story changed but I suspect he's not even aware of it. I don't recall calling him a liar. And if I did I publicly apologize for that. As stated, I have met Jenkins and consider him a sincere person...doing his best.

So where are all these half-dozen synonyms? I would also like to see an explanation, in a small number of straightforward, to-the-point sentences or paragraphs. 

Edited June 10 by Tom Gram

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Pat,

I don't understand your complaint against Horne. What he wrote in 2010 seems to be consistent with Robinson's HSCA testimony that you posted. Please explain what Horne did wrong, as you see it.

6 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

You’re kidding right? Robinson was asked about things he’d heard or read about the assassination and autopsy that struck him as incorrect. Horne left out the question and presented Robinson’s answer as his actual recollections.

 

Of course I'm not kidding.

I'm not at all familiar with any Robinson statements regarding the body or autopsy being moved around. So when I read that Pat had a problem with what Horne wrote, I focused on what Horne wrote compared to what Robinson had said in his testimony. They looked consistent to me, though I wondered how Horne could conclude what he did from what Robinson said, given how cryptic it is. I figured Horne must know something else.

But yeah, after re-reading the HSCA question, I see what the problem is.

I checked further into this and discovered that Horne is reportedly suspicious of those statements of Robinson's recorded in the transcript... because parentheses and ellipses aren't things you see in transcripts. So he reportedly set about to get the original audio recording of the HSCA interview to see what Robinson actually said. But couldn't get it.

 

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yes, you took that video frame from Law's book. So Law is the one who picked it.

BUT...

Law printed THREE related frames of the video for his book. And YOU cherry-picked the one that shows Jenkins pointing closest to the top of his head!

Regardless, this video frame without any sound and no transcript is NOT evidence of any kind the Jenkins placed the wound at the top of the head. As I have shown, Jenkins ALWAYS said the gaping wound was at the back of the head. And you have nothing to show otherwise.

 

 

Wow... just wow! I post the Jenkins frame, pointing out that you had cherry picked it to suit your needs... and you say therefore I have conceded your point! You have a lot of nerve to make such a ridiculous claim! (I'd penalize you for lying again, if I could! Though, of course, I'd give you a chance to correct it first. Like I did last time.)

 

Holy smokes, Sandy.

Take a breath. Think.

The image you claim I've cherry-picked was posted by Keven as evidence I am a liar. It comes from Law's book. It shows the location of Jenkins' hand when he pointed out the location of the smallish hole he observed before the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table...which created the much larger hole he depicted for the HSCA, etc.

Your insistence that I've cherry-picked this image to make people think there was a wound on the top of the head demonstrates two things...

1. That Jenkins is pointing to the top of his head in this image.

2. I was correct in claiming Keven's posts supported there was a wound at the top of the head. (Now, before someone has an aneurism, let us agree that by top of the head I mean above the occipital bone.)

 

Now, let's be clear. Jenkins' placement of the wound varied slightly over the years, which is not surprising, actually. But he was consistent over the years in claiming the wound as first observed was above the occipital area, and usually to the side as well. Here he is in 2002, pointing out the location of the big wound. 

Now, you keep going back and citing Jenkins' book... And this further verifies my claims. I have been claiming for years that Jenkins' recollections changed while working on the book, and your reliance upon it supports this.... Because the wound demonstrated above is not in the same location as the wound location depicted below...on an image taken from an interview put together to promote the book. 

Agreed?

 

Edited June 10 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Of course I'm not kidding.

I'm not at all familiar with any Robinson statements regarding the body or autopsy being moved around. So when I read that Pat had a problem with what Horne wrote, I focused on what Horne wrote compared to what Robinson had said in his testimony. They looked consistent to me, though I wondered how Horne could conclude what he did from what Robinson said, given how cryptic it is. I figured Horne must know something else.

But yeah, after re-reading the HSCA question, I see what the problem is.

I checked further into this and discovered that Horne is reportedly suspicious of those statements of Robinson's recorded in the transcript... because parentheses and ellipses aren't things you see in transcripts. So he reportedly set about to get the original audio recording of the HSCA interview to see what Robinson actually said. But couldn't get it.

 

By "checked into this" do you mean you contacted Horne? And that he respond almost immediately?

 

Edited June 10 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The image you claim I've cherry-picked was posted by Keven as evidence I am a liar. It comes from Law's book.

 

All right, I made a little mistake. I said you got the video frame from Laws book, when in reality both you and Law got your frames from the video.

But it makes no difference. You cherry-picked from the video, choosing the frame where Jenkins is pointing nearest the top of the head. We know this because Law printed three frames from the video and Jenkins is pointing quite low in one of them.

After cherry-picking that frame from the video, you made it darker for some reason. Here is is:

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Your insistence that I've cherry-picked this image to make people think there was a wound on the top of the head demonstrates two things...

1. That Jenkins is pointing to the top of his head in this image.

 

Jenkins is pointing near the top of the head. In the normal, non-darkened version of the frame, you can see that his fingertip isn't quite at the top of his head.

 

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

2. I was correct in claiming Keven's posts supported there was a wound at the top of the head. (Now, before someone has an aneurism, let us agree that by top of the head I mean above the occipital bone.)

 

Without having the video, we have no sound to listen to and know what Jenkins is saying. So we don't know why he's pointing there.

What we do know is that there is no record of Jenkins ever saying there was a wound at the top of the head. Though we do have plenty of transcripts and videos where he said there was a gaping wound on the back of the head, and that it is similar to the wound shown in McClelland's drawing. This is true both now (we know from his 2018 book) and long ago (we know from a 1991 video).

 

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, let's be clear. Jenkins' placement of the wound varied slightly over the years, which is not surprising, actually. But he was consistent over the years in claiming the wound as first observed was above the occipital area, and usually to the side as well. Here he is in 2002, pointing out the location of the big wound. 

 

Yes, that is consistently where Jenkins placed the gaping wound... today and forty years ago!

 

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, you keep going back and citing Jenkins' book... And this further verifies my claims. I have been claiming for years that Jenkins' recollections changed while working on the book, and your reliance upon it supports this....

 

I don't rely on Jenkins' 2018 book. I used it to show that he said the same thing in 2018 as he did in 1991.

 

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Because the wound demonstrated above is not in the same location as the wound location depicted below...on an image taken from an interview put together to promote the book. 

Agreed?

 

 

The guy in the red shirt needs to move his finger a little to the right.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

By "checked into this" do you mean you contacted Horne?

 

Nah, I just did some web searching.

Check this page out:

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/kennedy-casket-conspiracy/

Search the page for Robinson.

 

[Pat Speer]

35 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

All right, I made a little mistake. I said you got the video frame from Laws book, when in reality both you and Law got your frames from the video.

But it makes no difference. You cherry-picked from the video, choosing the frame where Jenkins is pointing nearest the top of the head. We know this because Law printed three frames from the video and Jenkins is pointing quite low in one of them.

After cherry-picking that frame from the video, you made it darker for some reason. Here is is:

 

 

 

 

Jenkins is pointing near the top of the head. In the normal, non-darkened version of the frame, you can see that his fingertip isn't quite at the top of his head.

 

 

Without having the video, we have no sound to listen to and know what Jenkins is saying. So we don't know why he's pointing there.

What we do know is that there is no record of Jenkins ever saying there was a wound at the top of the head. Though we do have plenty of transcripts and videos where he said there was a gaping wound on the back of the head, and that it is similar to the wound shown in McClelland's drawing. This is true both now (we know from his 2018 book) and long ago (we know from a 1991 video).

 

 

Yes, that is consistently where Jenkins placed the gaping wound... today and forty years ago!

 

 

I don't rely on Jenkins' 2018 book. I used it to show that he said the same thing in 2018 as he did in 1991.

 

 

The guy in the red shirt needs to move his finger a little to the right.

 

 

Oh my.

I took a screen grab from a video that was either once online or in my possession. It was so long ago I don't remember. I did not darken it. I just took a quick screen grab to show that Jenkins was pointing to the top of his head (or top of the back of his head, if you wish) but not the middle of the back of his head.

Keven then posted an image from this same interview that was published in Law's book. noting that this was where Jenkins pointed when describing the hole. This image was clearer but still demonstrated my point...that Jenkins was not pointing to the middle of the back of this head, where Horne and Mantik and their supporters need him to have pointed. 

So, yes,. this is where Jenkins pointed when describing the hole. I saw it and grabbed it in a screen grab. And Law or his publisher saw it in the same video and put it in the book. 

To be clear, Jenkins has been somewhat erratic as to the exact location of the hole, and that is not surprising. So his placement of the wound in this location proves little in the big picture beyond that he's been inconsistent. 

But in the small picture it supports my claim he showed a group of people the location of the hole at the Lancer conference that was not in the middle of the back of the head, but at the top. You made out that such a thing was impossible, and yet he did the same thing when talking to Law, which Law then put in his book. 

 

The man in the red shirt, who you claim put the wound in the wrong location, btw, is Jenkins. So here you once again support my analysis. Jenkins had long claimed the initial hole was above the occipital area, and had placed it above or to the side of the occ[pital bone. And yet here after working with Chesser, he had moved the hole to be mostly over the occipital bone. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this was not a coincidence. Chesser was working with Mantik and Horne and they needed Jenkins to place the wound over the occipital bone and voila he moved it to the occipital bone. That this was not a deliberate ploy by Jenkins is proven, moreover, by the fact that Jenkins failed to change his recollections to support Horne's claim of the size of the wound he'd first observed, and by Jenkins' specifying in his book that Horne was incorrect about pre-autopsy surgery being conducted in the Bethesda morgue. 

So...finally...are we on the same page? 

It appears you agree that the wound location presented by Jenkins in Law's book is not consistent with what he later claimed. Is that correct?

It appears you agree that the wound location normally pointed out by Jenkins did not overlay the occipital bone. Is that correct? 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

48 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Nah, I just did some web searching.

Check this page out:

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/kennedy-casket-conspiracy/

Search the page for Robinson.

 

So Horne decides to fatten up his arguments by claiming Robinson saw the body taken back out, and finds a quote from Robinson in which he suggests no such thing occurred. 

But does he re-think his argument or acknowledge Robinson's apparent disagreement with his argument? 

No, he cherry-picks Robinson's words and pretends they support his argument. 

And then Hornberger, realizing this, comes to Horne's defense, and makes out that we have reason to distrust the transcript and that it is therefore okay to assume Robinson really said the exact opposite of what its said in the transcript. 

I mean, that's what's goin on, right? 

It should be noted moreover that Horne was grossly misrepresenting an HSCA transcript to get his desired result and that he personally interviewed Robinson in 1996 and wrote up a memo in which he said Robinson claimed he'd arrived as the head was being inspected and before the chest was opened up... and that Robinson said nothing about sitting there for an hour and a half while the body was moved back and forth etc.

Like I wrote earlier... Have we been played for suckers? 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

27 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The man in the red shirt, who you claim put the wound in the wrong location, btw, is Jenkins.

 

It's a lot easier to accurately point to the location on another head, rather than your own, given that you have to do the latter by feel.

So Jenkins in the red shirt is more faithfully pointing to where the wound was, IMO.

 

27 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So...finally...are we on the same page?

 

 Here are our differences:

1. You conflate the dollar-sized wound with the fist-sized wound.
   
   In contrast, I say the fist-sized wound was what Jenkins saw when they first took the towel off Kennedy's head. The dollar-sized hole is what he saw after the mortician finished reassembling the head and stretched the scalp as much as possible to cover the wound.
   
   I didn't just make that up. That is what Jenkins said in the 1991 video, and in his 2018 book.
    
2. You say that the fist sized-hole was actually fragment(s) that fell to the table when the scalp was reflected.
   
   In contrast, I say that the fist-sized hole was missing both skull bone and scalp. But that it was difficult to determine the extent of the wound due to all the blood and matted hair. It actually looked like the back part of Kennedy's head was blown off. However, once the scalp was reflected, Jenkins could see that it was a smaller wound... the size of a fist.
   
   I didn't just make that up. That is what Jenkins said in the 1991 video, and in his 2018 book.
    
3. You say that Jenkins 'story changed, and that you thought he was influenced by... Chessar I believe you said.
   
   In contrast, I say that Jenkins' story has remained remarkably the same over the decades.
   
   I didn't just make that up. I compared what Jenkins said in the 1991 video to what he wrote in his 2018 book. They are virtually the same.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

No, he cherry-picks Robinson's words and pretends they support his argument.

 

If Horne posted that here on the forum, and claimed that Robinson had said those things, and I were still a moderator, I would penalize him if he refused to correct his claim.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If Horne posted that here on the forum, and claimed that Robinson had said those things, and I were still a moderator, I would penalize him if he refused to correct his claim.

Why do you keep saying this? You're not a moderator, so why do you think any forum member cares what actions you "would" take if you were?