The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

I *think* its most likely that CIA brass and CD Jackson got together to plan how they could gain control of the film, recognizing its importance.  Life would front for the CIA, who of course couldn't itself bid, win the bid for the original film (they outbid others by a lot), probably using CIA money, and at some point pass it to the CIA for inspection at its labs.

It's good that Roger is now making it clear that this essential part of his theory is speculative. It is not a fact "that CIA brass and CD Jackson got together to plan how they could gain control of the film". A plausible alternative scenario is that CIA brass and Jackson did not get together to plan how they could gain control of the film.

Roger's "CIA brass and CD Jackson got together" scenario is consistent with his original assumption that the people who promoted the cover-up were the same people who instigated the assassination. If, on the other hand, the people who promoted the cover-up were not the same people who instigated the assassination, Roger's scenario does not follow: in the absence of actual documentary evidence, there is no reason to believe that "CIA brass and CD Jackson got together to plan how they could gain control of the film".

If CIA brass and Jackson did not get together, there is no reason to believe that the CIA (or anyone else) obtained the original film from Life. And if no-one obtained the original film from Life on the weekend of the assassination, the film cannot plausibly have been altered, for reasons I've already given.

As I've tried to point out several times, Roger's entire argument depends upon his assumption that the people who promoted the cover-up were the same people who instigated the assassination. If that assumption is mistaken, the case for alteration collapses.

The people who promoted the cover-up claimed that the assassination was the work of a lone nut, not a conspiracy. I've given reasons to suggest that whoever instigated the assassination wanted it to look like the precise opposite of that: a conspiracy and not the work of a lone nut. Can anyone make the case that the assassination was intended to look like the work of a lone nut? If not, the cover-up cannot realistically have been promoted by the same people who instigated the assassination.

[Jean Ceulemans]

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The people who promoted the cover-up claimed that the assassination was the work of a lone nut, not a conspiracy. I've given reasons to suggest that whoever instigated the assassination wanted it to look like the precise opposite of that: a conspiracy and not the work of a lone nut. Can anyone make the case that the assassination was intended to look like the work of a lone nut? If not, the cover-up cannot realistically have been promoted by the same people who instigated the assassination.

Important part here, one has to wonder to what extend the cover-up guys knew some of the guys that instigated the assassination (or had gotten to know them).  Some (higher up I would assume) could have been both, plans changing under pressure... IMO nothing is really impossible.  I think it´s a combination, and that´s one of the reasons we are still here discussing it.  A bunch of people were not 100% innocent, that´s why most would not have talked...

If one wants to cover up, one needs to know very well what happened as well (in order for the cover up to be efficient).

Edited yesterday at 05:05 PM by Jean Ceulemans
add

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/11/2024 at 3:24 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

...This has been the case for at least 30 years, ever since Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics and the Death of JFK came out. That book may not be to Roger's taste, however, since Scott has the unfortunate habit of basing his conclusions on actual documentary evidence, rather than pure speculation.

 

Jeremy,

I quote you above showing your high regard for Peter Dale Scott's work because he bases his conclusions on "actual documentary evidence. Very good... I feel the same way.

Scott's theory has two phases, where Phase 1 is a conspiracy between the Cubans/Soviets and Oswald to kill Kennedy, and Phase 2 is a non-conspiracy where lone-gunman Oswald kills Kennedy. The plotters are able to manage which of the two phases are accepted/believed by the FBI in their investigation.

 

On 7/11/2024 at 3:24 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

[The] planners cannot have wanted the assassination to appear to be the work of a lone gunman [Phase 2]. If they had, they would have ensured that it looked like the work of a lone gunman. But they didn't do that.

 

According to Peter Dale Scott, whose work you hold in high esteem, the plotters could have chosen Phase 2 -- lone gunman --  had they wanted to. So are you saying here that the plotters had already chosen Phase 1 -- conspiracy --by the time the shooting with multiple shooters had begun?

That couldn't be. Because if they had already chosen to go with Phase 2 -- lone gunman -- before gunshots, they wouldn't have later proceeded to go with Phase 1 instead... which is what they did with Gilberto Alvarado when he stated a couple days later that he had seen Oswald being paid $6500 in the Cuban Consul to kill Kennedy.

My point is that the evidence indicates that the decision between Phase 1 and Phase 2 to be made by the plotters wasn't meant to be made for at least a few days after the killing.

(Although, as Roger has pointed out, the decision to blame only Oswald was made just hours after the shooting and called into Air Force One by McGeorge Bundy. It was made by someone other than the plotters. That is to say, before the plotters had decided on Phase 1 or Phase 2.)

It is clear to me, and the evidence shows, that the plotters decided that "the best evidence" for the case needed alteration to make it compatible with Phase-2 (lone nut), whereas the rest of the coverup could be done ad hoc. That way, if Phase 2 was chosen, the altered [best evidence" would indicate that Oswald did it alone, thus making it easy to blame Oswald. Which would allow the government to shut down any further investigation... thus providing cover for the plotters.

"The best evidence" were 1) the autopsy documentation and 2) the films that had a good view of the wounds. So these were taken control of and altered as best as possible to make them fit the lone gun scenario.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

As I've tried to point out several times, Roger's entire argument depends upon his assumption that the people who promoted the cover-up were the same people who instigated the assassination.

 

We know for a fact that some pre-autopsy surgical chicanery was performed on JFK's head a mere few hours after the assassination.

It is inconceivable that a post-assassination-initiated coverup could have possibly triggered that early surgery.

It's much more likely that the surgery was preplanned. And, as I said in my prior post, the purpose of it was likely to make the autopsy consistent with the Phase-2 lone nut scenario.

Roger is right.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The people who promoted the cover-up claimed that the assassination was the work of a lone nut, not a conspiracy. I've given reasons to suggest that whoever instigated the assassination wanted it to look like the precise opposite of that: a conspiracy and not the work of a lone nut. Can anyone make the case that the assassination was intended to look like the work of a lone nut? If not, the cover-up cannot realistically have been promoted by the same people who instigated the assassination.

 

I can give two possible ways that could have happened.

1. The CIA made it look like the Cubans or Soviets paid Oswald to kill Kennedy,  to create a pretext for war against them. The government suspected the CIA of doing this, didn't want to go to war, and so chose to reject and cover-up the conspiracy evidence.
2. The plotters created a PDS Phase 1 / Phase 2 scenario pair. They chose Phase 2 after the assassination, and so the assassination looked like the work of a lone nut.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 07:17 PM by Sandy Larsen

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

We know for a fact that some pre-autopsy surgical chicanery was performed on JFK's head a mere few hours after the assassination.

Absolute and utter nonsense. It is in no way whatsoever "a fact" that anything of the sort happened, at all.

[Sandy Larsen]

44 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

We know for a fact that some pre-autopsy surgical chicanery was performed on JFK's head a mere few hours after the assassination.

44 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Absolute and utter nonsense. It is in no way whatsoever "a fact" that anything of the sort happened, at all.

 

The illicit surgery was reported by the FBI in their Sibert and O’Neill Report. It can be seen in some of the autopsy photos, though it cannot be seen in the Zapruder film. None of the ~20 witnesses at Parkland hospital saw it. A number of autopsy technicians saw it, some commenting that it was created by the doctors.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 04:34 PM by Sandy Larsen

[Jonathan Cohen]

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The illicit surgery was reported by the FBI in their Sibert and O’Neill Report.

It was "reported" by agents who had no direct evidence for it other than their own personal impressions of the state of the body, and even if such a statement was uttered out loud by Dr. Humes during the autopsy, as Sibert later claimed, it's because there was genuine confusion on the part of the doctors as to what wounds were caused by what bullets (which is, of course, completely normal and does not require any kind of conspiratorial explanation). There is absolutely ZERO medical evidence to support the notion that any illicit surgery took place before the autopsy.

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It can be seen in some of the autopsy photos

Then you are seeing it to the exclusion of every other medically trained, professional witness who actually was in the room during the autopsy.

Edited yesterday at 04:29 PM by Jonathan Cohen

[Sandy Larsen]

21 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

31 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The illicit surgery was reported by the FBI in their Sibert and O’Neill Report.

21 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

...there was genuine confusion on the part of the doctors as to what wounds were caused by what bullets (which is, of course, completely normal and does not require any kind of conspiratorial explanation).

 

Tell that to Humes! He's the one to exclaim there had been surgery... which is absolutely a conspiratorial explanation for a body that had just been shot dead.

 

21 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

There is absolutely ZERO medical evidence to support the notion that any illicit surgery took place before the autopsy.

 

In Parkland: No surgery present on head.

In Bethesda: Surgery present on head. Autopsy photos to prove it. Autopsy photos are medical evidence.

 

Edited yesterday at 04:51 PM by Sandy Larsen

[Roger Odisio]

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger Odisio writes:

It's good that Roger is now making it clear that this essential part of his theory is speculative. It is not a fact "that CIA brass and CD Jackson got together to plan how they could gain control of the film". A plausible alternative scenario is that CIA brass and Jackson did not get together to plan how they could gain control of the film.

I did no such thing. The idea the Jackson and the CIA considered which party should get to use the original Z film is a logical inference from what we know, which I have already explained and you have mostly ignored. 

Briefly, federal officials had ordered briefing boards to clarify what happened.  The original film was better suited for that task, particularly if the film revealed problems for their Oswald story *they were already going with*.  They knew that Life had the original.  CD Jackson had worked for the CIA and  understood that the officials' need for the original film as a national security matter far surpassed Life's desire to make stills for its magazine.  It was actually a simple matter for the CIA to take the original film for Life, with Jackson's agreement, and send it to their labs so the briefing boards could be done

You have repeatedly asserted that the film used for the briefing boards was SS's copy because that was all that was available to the officials.  They had no choice.  But that is false as we can see.  So here you are left to claim that here was no such consideration, no such decision.  That's a "plausible alternative" you assert.   Based on what?  Based on the fact there is no memo about the issue?  

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger's "CIA brass and CD Jackson got together" scenario is consistent with his original assumption that the people who promoted the cover-up were the same people who instigated the assassination. If, on the other hand, the people who promoted the cover-up were not the same people who instigated the assassination, Roger's scenario does not follow: in the absence of actual documentary evidence, there is no reason to believe that "CIA brass and CD Jackson got together to plan how they could gain control of the film".

If CIA brass and Jackson did not get together, there is no reason to believe that the CIA (or anyone else) obtained the original film from Life. And if no-one obtained the original film from Life on the weekend of the assassination, the film cannot plausibly have been altered, for reasons I've already given.

Yep.  Without "documentary evidence" there is no reason to believe such a consideration was ever entertained.  A logical inference from what we know, without any contradiction, or even attempted contradiction from you, doesn't count.  That approach frees you from any responsibility to tackle the logic you're presented with, which you gladly shirk.  "Where is the memo" frees you from thinking. It allows you to make up something and call it a plausible alternative in order to look like you're responding and move on.

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

As I've tried to point out several times, Roger's entire argument depends upon his assumption that the people who promoted the cover-up were the same people who instigated the assassination. If that assumption is mistaken, the case for alteration collapses.

The people who promoted the cover-up claimed that the assassination was the work of a lone nut, not a conspiracy. I've given reasons to suggest that whoever instigated the assassination wanted it to look like the precise opposite of that: a conspiracy and not the work of a lone nut. Can anyone make the case that the assassination was intended to look like the work of a lone nut? If not, the cover-up cannot realistically have been promoted by the same people who instigated the assassination.

Now you've gone off the deep end.  You expect us to believe that the killers who planned and executed the murder were entirely different from those who planned and carried out the coverup!  And different than those who implemented the policy changes that motivated the murder in the first place.  I ask again: was that a third group of planners?

Simply preposterous.  The murder was a very risky and high stakes endeavor.  The lives of the planners were on the line.  Yet you want us to believe they would have gone ahead with the murder without a plan in place to get away with it!  They would have depended on someone else for that!   No small time crook would do that, let alone the professional killers we're dealing with.  

When you actually look at the details of the coverup--you know, the evidence, setting aside your mindless speculation--it was absolutely essential to the success of the whole project.  Precisely because the discrepancy between their Oswald story and what actually happened required so many things to be done.  Some of which I've already explained: 

*the snatching of body from Dr Rose so they could control the autopsy

*quickly killing Oswald before he could talk to a lawyer, thus avoiding a trial

*creating the WC which could be depended on the frame Oswald 

* the message from the WH Situation Room to officials coming back to DC after the murder intended to intimidate them into acquiescence, no matter what they thought they saw in Dallas 

*And yes, altering the Z film once the briefing boards verified it contradicted the Oswald story.

As I said. the planners wanted to use a multishooter crossfire to greatly increase the chance Kennedy could not escape, and they calculated the could cover up the discrepancy between their story and want happened sufficiently to save their skin.  They were right.

[Jonathan Cohen]

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tell that to Humes! He's the one to exclaim there had been surgery... which is absolutely a conspiratorial explanation for a body that had just been shot dead.

Are you actually trying to claim that simply because Humes may have said such a thing in the heat of the most important professional moment of his life that it AUTOMATICALLY means there actually was surgery to the head? Because that is also absurd.

 

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In Bethesda: Surgery present on head. Autopsy photos to prove it. Autopsy photos are medical evidence.

YOUR untrained interpretation of what an autopsy photo shows is not evidence, at all.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 minute ago, Roger Odisio said:

The murder was a very risky and high stakes endeavor

And clearly in your version, the plotters had not a care in the world ahead of time that they'd have to selectively alter film and photo evidence of the crime without ever knowing if said alterations would contradict other evidence not available to them within hours of the assassination?

[Roger Odisio]

6 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

And clearly in your version, the plotters had not a care in the world ahead of time that they'd have to selectively alter film and photo evidence of the crime without ever knowing if said alterations would contradict other evidence not available to them within hours of the assassination?

Stop distorting what I said, Jonathon.  Not a care in the world?  I said the opposite.  In covering up what happened, the planners knew they would have their work cut out for them, but for them making sure they got Kennedy was the top priority. They also knew they had many weapons to make the coverup work.  Their calculations turn out to have been good enough.

[Keven Hofeling]

MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson:

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm

"...PAGE 2:

...- [mortician Tom Robinson] said he saw the brain removed from President Kennedy's body, and that a large percentage of it was gone "in the back" from the "medulla," and that the portion of the brain that was missing was about the size of a closed fist. He described the condition of the brain in this area as the consistency of "soup." He said that the brain was "not cut up" at the autopsy....

...-Visible damage to skull caused by the bullet of bullets (as opposed to damage caused by the pathologists): Robinson described 3 locations of wounds:

-he saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small wounds and slight discoloration began to occur...

...-he described a "blow-out" which consisted of a flap of skin in the right temple of the President's head, which he believed to be an exit wound based on conversations he heard in the morgue amongst the pathologists (and executed two drawings of this right temporal defect on both a photocopy of a right lateral photograph of the President, and on a right lateral anatomy diagram of the human skull);

-he described a large, open head wound in the back of the President's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp. He related his opinion that the wound in the back of the President's head was an entry wound occurring from a bullet fired from behind, based upon conversations he heard in the morgue among the pathologists. (Robinson executed two drawings of the hole in the back of the President's head, one on an anatomy drawing of the posterior skull, and one on an anatomy drawing of the lateral skull. On the annotated lateral skull drawing, the wound in the rear of the head is much larger than the wound in the right temple.)..."

"...REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT'S BRAIN: ROBINSON DREW DOTTED LINES ON THE DRAWING HE EXECUTED OF THE POSTERIOR SKULL WHICH SHOWS THE WOUND BETWEEN THE EARS. WHEN ASKED BY ARRB STAFF WHAT THE DOTTED...

PAGE 3:

"...LINES REPRESENTED, HE SAID "SAW CUTS." HE EXPLAINED THAT SOME SAWING WAS DONE TO REMOVE SOME BONE BEFORE THE BRAIN COULD BE REMOVED, AND THEN WENT ON TO DESCRIBE WHAT IS A NORMAL CRANIOTOMY PROCEDURE, SAYING THAT THIS PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED ON JFK. HE SEEMED TO REMEMBER THE USE OF A SAW, AND THE SCALP BEING REFLECTED FORWARD (emphasis in this paragraph not in original)..."

"...FOX AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS:

After completing his four drawings of head wounds and describing those wounds, ARRB staff showed Mr. Robinson a set of what is alleged to be the Fox autopsy photographs to see whether they were consistent with what he remembered seeing in the morgue at Bethesda. His comments follow, related to...

PAGE 5:

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0005a.htm

...various Fox photos:

-Right Superior Profile (corresponding to B & W #s 5 and 6); He does not see the small shrapnel holes he noted in the right cheek, but he assumes this is because of the photo's poor quality.

-Back of Head (corresponds to B & W #s 15 and 16): Robinson said; "You see, this is the flap of skin, the blow-out in the right temple that I told you about, and which I drew in my drawing." WHEN ASKED BY ARRB WHERE THE HOLE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD WAS IN RELATION TO THE PHOTOGRAPH, ROBINSON RESPONDED BY PLACING HIS FINGERS IN A CIRCLE JUST ABOVE THE WHITE SPOT IN THE HAIRLINE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH AND SAID "THE HOLE WAS RIGHT HERE, WHERE I SAID IT WAS IN MY DRAWING, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T SHOW UP IN THIS PHOTO." (emphasis not in original)

-Top of Head/Superior View of Cranium (corresponds to B & W #'s 7-10): ROBINSON FROWNED, AND SAID WITH APPARENT DISAGREEMENT, "THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE WOUND WAS IN THE TOP OF THE HEAD." HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DAMAGE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS "WHAT THE DOCTORS DID," AND EXPLAINED THAT THEY CUT THIS SCALP OPEN AND REFLECTED IT BACK IN ORDER TO REMOVE BULLET FRAGMENTS (THE FRAGMENTS HE HAD OBSERVED IN A GLASS VIAL). ARRB STAFF MEMBERS ASKED ROBINSON WHETHER THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE TOP OF THE HEAD WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE MORGUE AND BEFORE THE BRAIN WAS REMOVED; HE REPLIED BY SAYING THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN," BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD (emphasis not in original)...."

______________

FBI Report "Surgery to the Head" - Nurse Audrey Bell - Wound 5 Times Larger than in Dallas -- Nova

______________

Bethesda Tech Paul O'Connor Questions if a Craniotomy was Performed at Parkland in Best Evidence Video

______________

James Jenkins and Dr. Michael Chesser discuss JFK's brain and Humes saying "it fell out into my hand"

Former Bethesda Autopsy Tech James Jenkins discussing condition of JFK's brain with Dr. Michael Chesser, including Humes saying "it fell out into my hand."

Excerpt from "A Meeting Of The Minds" consisting of Dr. Mike Chesser, Dr. David Mantik, William Matson Law and James C. Jenkins discussing the JFK Assassination autopsy research.  Filmed on location in Dallas, TX. 

 

______________

Bethesda Tech Paul O'Connor -- No Craniotomy at Autopsy -- Brain Gone -- RFK Took Brain in 1965

There is simply no way to get around this...

Dr. Humes always insisted that he never had to perform a craniotomy (skull cap removal surgery) to remove the President’s brain.

* Humes maintained this lie, under oath, for 33 years --- before the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the ARRB.

* He also informed Army pathologist Pierre Finck, who arrived late at Bethesda to assist with the autopsy, that “no sawing of the skull was necessary” in order to remove President Kennedy’s brain (per Dr. Finck’s 1965 report to his Commanding Officer, General Blumberg).
 ---------------------------------------------
DR. DAVID MANTIK ON DOUG HORNE'S ACCOUNT OF THE BETHESDA AUTOPSISTS CLANDESTINELY ALTERING JFK'S HEAD WOUNDS WITH A BONE SAW:

"...So why does Horne conclude that H&B illicitly removed (and altered) the brain shortly after 6:35 PM, before any X-rays were taken, and before the official autopsy began? He here introduces two intriguing witnesses – the two R's, namely Reed and Robinson. Edward Reed was assistant to Jerrol Custer (the radiology tech), while Tom Robinson was a mortician. Rather consistently with one another, but quite independently, both describe critical steps taken by H&B that no one else reports. (Horne documents why no one else reported these events – almost everyone else had been evicted from the morgue before this clandestine interlude.) After the body was placed on the morgue table (and before X-rays were taken), Reed briefly sat in the gallery.18 Reed states19 that Humes first used a scalpel across the top of the forehead to pull the scalp back. Then he used a saw to cut the forehead bone, after which he (and Custer, too) were asked to leave the morgue. (Reed was not aware that this intervention by Humes was unofficial.) This activity by Humes is highly significant because multiple witnesses saw the intact entry hole high in the right forehead at the hairline. On the other hand, the autopsy photographs show only a thin incision at this site, an incision that no Parkland witness ever saw. The implication is obvious: this specific autopsy photograph was taken after Humes altered the forehead – thereby likely obliterating the entry hole.
⁠
Reed's report suggests that Humes deliberately obliterated the right forehead entry; in fact, the autopsy photograph does not show this entry site. Paradoxically, however, Robinson (the mortician) recalls20 seeing, during restoration, a wound about 1/4º inch across at this very location. He even recalls having to place wax at this site. So the question is obvious: If Humes had obliterated the wound (as seems the case based on the extant autopsy photograph), how then could Robinson still see the wound during restoration? This question cannot be answered with certainty, but two options arise: (1) perhaps the wound was indeed obliterated (or mostly obliterated) and Robinson merely suffered some memory merge – i.e., even though he added wax to the incision (the one still visible in the extant photograph), he was actually recalling the way it looked before Humes got to it, or (2) the photograph itself has been altered – to disguise the wound that was visible in an original photograph. The latter option was seemingly endorsed by Joe O'Donnell, the USIA photographer,21 who said that Knudsen actually showed him such a photograph.
⁠
Regarding Robinson, Horne concludes that he arrived with the hearse that brought the body (i.e., the first entry). After that, Robinson simply observed events from the morgue gallery; contrary to Reed's experience, he was not asked to leave. Just before 7 PM, Robinson22 saw H&B remove large portions of the rear and top of the skull with a saw, in order to access the brain. (Robinson was not aware that this activity was off the record.)... 

...Contrary to Reed and Robinson, Humes25 declared that a saw was not important:
⁠
"We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain."
⁠
Although James Jenkins (an autopsy technician) does not explicitly describe the use of a saw, he does recall that damage to the brain (as seen inside the skull) was less than the corresponding size of the cranial defect; this indirectly implies prior removal of some of the skull.26...
⁠
...The reader might well ask why Reed and Robinson (and Custer, too) were permitted to observe (at least briefly) this illegal surgery by H&B. Horne proposes that the morgue manager that night (Kellerman) was not present for the first casket entry – that's because he was riding with Jackie and the bronze casket. Therefore, before he arrived (most likely that was shortly after 7 PM), there was no hands-on stage manager in the morgue ... Robinson, on the other hand, dressed in civilian clothing, may have seemed to Kellerman a lesser threat, so Robinson stayed...."

⁠https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/horne-douglas-inside-the-arrb-part-iv

______________

James Jenkins at 2018 Dallas Conference Tells Dr. David Mantik that a Craniotomy was not Needed

Former Bethesda Autopsy Tech James Jenkins tells Dr. Mantik that a standard skull cap (craniotomy) had not been needed due to pre-existing damage (AND INCISIONS) to JFK's skull. The significance is that there is much evidence that a bone saw WAS used to perform a craniotomy at Bethesda, including the testimony of mortician Tom Robinson and Bethesda Autopsy Tech Ed Reed.

Excerpt from "A Meeting Of The Minds" consisting of Dr. Mike Chesser, Dr. David Mantik, William Matson Law and James C. Jenkins discussing the JFK Assassination autopsy research.  Filmed on location in Dallas, TX.

______________

James Jenkins Tells Dr. Chesser No Bone Saw Used After Chesser Mentions Seeing Saw Cuts in Brain Autopsy Photographs
Former Bethesda Autopsy Tech James Jenkins tells Dr. Chesser there was no bone saw used after Chesser mentions seein saw cuts in autopsy photos of brain. The significance is that there is much evidence that a bone saw WAS used to perform a craniotomy, including the testimony of mortician Tom Robinson and Bethesda Autopsy Tech Ed Reed.

Excerpt from "A Meeting Of The Minds" consisting of Dr. Mike Chesser, Dr. David Mantik, William Matson Law and James C. Jenkins discussing the JFK Assassination autopsy research.  Filmed on location in Dallas, TX.

______________

Dr. Paul Peters on JFK Head Incision -- A Vince Palamara Video

Small wound(s) in the front of JFK's head - PART 1.3   https://www.reddit.com/r/JFKeveryday/comments/jz5sec/small_wounds_in_the_front_of_jfks_head_part_13/

In the photos showing the outside of the scalp, there are some points of interest on the right front of the head.

There is a semi-circular dark spot in the forehead, above the right eye. It is not clear whether this could be a piece of hair, a shadow, a bullet hole, or an artifact of photo-manipulation (NSFW): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aVqhS6WrvKXHdJjWfDXadtpCVhlQ5feN

...What made the v-shaped defect? On the 1988 PBS Nova program Who Shot President Kennedy?, Parkland's Dr. Paul Peters was given a chance to look at the official autopsy photos. Peters said afterward "I would have to say, honestly, in looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time [gestures at right front of head], except for that little incision that seems to be coming down in the parietal area. In looking at the photographs, I could envision that an incision might have been made in order to pull the scalp back to expose this bone to make a photograph of that area" (Video, 47:57).

From The Third Decade newsletter, Volume 7, Issue 3, March, 1991:

[...p. 9, New Evidence of Body Tampering by Joanne Braun]

My next step was to write to the Dallas doctors, or to most of them, about fifteen in all, enclosing copies of the High Treason photo of the right side of the head. To Dr. Peters I quoted what he had said on Nova and asked him why he thought the V-shaped irregularity coming down on the right forehead was a surgical incision. In my letters to the other doctors I simply directed their attention to this feature and asked if they had seen it at Parkland. Eight of them replied.

Dr. Peters wrote, "It appeared to me, in reviewing the photos, that the incision was very sharp, as if cut by a knife, and I thought at the time that the prosector might have made it to enhance the removal of the brain and contents. I suppose it could have been an extension of the tear from the wound, but I did not notice it at the time we operated on President Kennedy."37 (He also drew an arrow of the photo pointing to the "incision" and noted that he had meant to say it was in the "fronto-parietal" region.)

Of the others, five of them, Drs. Curtis, Giesecke, Jones, Salyer and White merely said that they did not see this V-shaped feature at Parkland Hospital.38

Dr. Perry's answer was "there was no incision or indentation" in the right forehead.39

Dr. McClelland replied, "I did not see any such incisions at the time of examination in the Emergency Room at Parkland. I would imagine the incisions shown in the copy of the photograph you sent me were made during the autopsy in Bethesda and do not find them mysterious or any reason for concern."40...

...[...Notes]

37 Letter from Paul C. Peters, M.D., dated August 25, 1989

38 Letter from Don T. Curtis, D.D.S., dated September 8, 1989; undated letters from Drs. Adolph H. Giesecke, Ronald C. Jones, Kenneth E. Salyer and Martin G. White.

39 Letter from Malcolm O. Perry, M.D., dated August 29, 1989. Dr. Perry went on to say, “One of the problems was that there was so much damage to the skull and the scalp that the entire scalp and hair were displaced, sagging slightly forward and to the side, and of course this made it appear that there was something really there. (?) You must recognize that the parietal occipital bone was shattered and parts of it were missing which allowed the scalp to be displaced anteriorly.”

40 Letter from Robert N. McClelland, Md.D., dated August 29, 1989

Parkland Hospital’s Dr. Kenneth Salyer appeared on the 1993 documentary JFK: The Case For Conspiracy. While looking at copies of the autopsy photos, Salyer said:

A: This wound is not correct, this isn't right.

Q: That is not right?

A: No. See, this- this has been doctored right here, this is laying open [gestures to right side of the head]. See, the way- the way you have him, the way they've got him here is- skinflaps have been have been cut, or altered, or pushed up, or changed, and isn't the way he looked. This- He looked- Here, this was wide open with brain open here. This is scalp that's pushed back, and it's all distorted.

[...]

A: Something's been done right here [points to v-shape], and the way he was on the- on the emergency table is this is open, and this whole area is an open wound.

(Video, 1:02:41)...

...So, at least 9 Parkland witnesses indicated they didn’t remember such a defect visible in the right forehead – Drs. Paul Peters, Don Curtis, Adolph Giesecke, Ronald Jones, Kenneth Salyer, Martin White, Malcolm Perry, Robert McClelland, and Nurse Diana Bowron. Was there any explanation from the autopsy pathologists from Bethesda? 

______________

PARKLAND DOCTOR MALCOLM PERRY DISAVOWS JAGGED THROAT WOUND

From Robert Groden’s appearance at a 2003 conference:

 […] As far as alteration of the body goes, the only evidence of that is the fact that when I interviewed Dr. Perry, he told me that he did not create that wound, he said- he stood up shocked and he pointed- pointed at the photograph, which I- again, I had shown him for the first time, he said I didn't do that. He said that's a butcher job. A tracheotomy hole is the size of a pencil to put a tube down there. If it leaks, it defeats the purpose. This hole is large enough to stick a fire hose down. It didn't work that way at all. It- it's sad but that's the case. […]

From another conference with Robert Groden, undated, uploaded to Youtube 9/28/2021 by the Lone Gunman channel UCAG--Ai7Xh56gr6nxnX-24A:

As far as alteration of the President's body goes, I believe that there’s there's- it's unquestionable that something was done to the president's throat. I interviewed Dr. Perry in 1978 and I showed him the autopsy photographs which he had never seen before, and he took a look at the throat wound in the photographs and he stood up at his desk and he was just shocked. He was silent for a moment, then he said ‘I didn't do that’, he said ‘that's a butchered job’. He said ‘I didn't do that’, and then he relived the entire tracheotomy, he stood up and he had his- what was supposed to be a- a scalpel in his hand and he showed doing it- doing the- the incision and said it was only about a little over an inch long he says- he just went on and on about why that couldn't have been what he had done. [...]

______________

 

Edited yesterday at 05:44 PM by Keven Hofeling

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

In covering up what happened, the planners knew they would have their work cut out for them, but for them making sure they got Kennedy was the top priority. They also knew they had many weapons to make the coverup work.  Their calculations turn out to have been good enough.

So doesn't that mean they would have needed to alter EVERY film and photo showing the head shot, to make sure there wasn't a mountain of clearly contradictory evidence suddenly showing up months, weeks or years after the assassination?