The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Greg Doudna]

Also Keven, I am going to ask two questions now, with a request that you try for a straight, succinct to-the-point answer in a brief number of sentences to these two questions (thanks):

If—if Jenkins was describing a massive gaping head wound which at one end of it included the rear part of the top of the head, and the rest of it was the upper part of the rear of the head, would you consider that within acceptable semantic range to paraphrase that as “at (some part of) the top of the head”? 

Do you judge the gaping wound as described by Jenkins or visualized by his splayed fingertips to include any part of which could legitimately be called “at the top of the head”?

[Keven Hofeling]

On 5/30/2024 at 4:45 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Also Keven, I am going to ask two questions now, with a request that you try for a straight, succinct to-the-point answer in a brief number of sentences to these two questions (thanks):

If—if Jenkins was describing a massive gaping head wound which at one end of it included the rear part of the top of the head, and the rest of it was the upper part of the rear of the head, would you consider that within acceptable semantic range to paraphrase that as “at (some part of) the top of the head”? 

Do you judge the gaping wound as described by Jenkins or visualized by his splayed fingertips to include any part of which could legitimately be called “at the top of the head”?

No and no.

And the reasons why are very simple.

This is the first reason:

James Jenkins himself asserted to Harrison Livingstone in 1990 that he did not recall any hole on the top of JFK's head, and Speer was obligated to address that in the context of his claims that Jenkins has "NUMEROUS TIMES" stated the contrary, but Speer has never included the statements Jenkins made that contradict his claims in his analyses. If James Jenkins asserts that he did not see a hole in the top of JFK's head, then his statement to that effect say what they mean and mean what they say. There is no ambiguity about this.

Mr. Doudna, if you want to skip the following section within the dividing lines due to your dislike of evidentiary support, by all means, feel free to do so. My second answer will follow:

__________________

JAMES JENKINS NEVER CLAIMED HE HAD SEEN A HOLE IN THE TOP OF JFK'S HEAD IN ANY OF HE INTERVIEWS PRIOR TO 2015, NOT TO THE HSCA IN 1977, NOT TO DAVID LIFTON IN 1979, NOT TO HARRISON LIVINGSTONE IN 1990, NOT AT THE 1991 DALLAS MEDICAL WITNESSES CONFERENCE, AND NOT TO WILLIAM LAW IN 1998.

IN FACT, JAMES JENKINS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMED THAT HE EVER SAW A HOLE IN THE TOP OF JFK'S HEAD TO HARRISON LIVINGSTONE IN 1990, AS FOLLOWS:

Harrison Livingstone wrote that the HSCA people showed James Jenkins the Rydberg drawings of JFK's head wound and talked to him about a hole in the top of the head and, according to Jenkins "there was nothing whatsoever like that."

James Jenkins reported to Harrison Livingstone that:

"I looked at the back of the head, but all I saw was the massive gaping wound..."

Harrison Livingstone wrote "[i]n response to my questions on October,8, 1990, as to whether or not there was enough intact scalp on the back of the head to completely cover up the large hole described by all witnesses, Jenkins said, "No. 

"There was a hole in all of it [the scalp and the bone]. There was a hole in the occipital-parietal area. I had seen a wound similar to that before.

"I just never could understand how they came up with the conclusions that they did.

"The other thing that they told me was that there was a wound on the top of the head. I don't remember that. I could almost say that there was none."

James Jenkins said to Harrison Livingstone:

"Looking at the photos in your book, the large defect seems to have slid forward toward the frontal area of the head, too. I can't say that I'm absolutely right, but I feel like if it had been really that far forward in the head, certainly we would have seen it. And I would not have focused on .. ."

"You certainly would have-what?"

"The large defect. That's almost on the top as opposed to the area where we saw it."

__________________

My second reason is that William Law -- who was present when James Jenkins made the hand gesture that Mr. Speer has seized upon (one out of three photos) as his only source of evidentiary support for his claim that Jenkins has "NUMEROUS TIMES" said that he saw a hole on the top of JFK's head when he first saw the body -- has also explicitly disclaimed that James Jenkins said that there was a hole on the top of JFK's head:

 

Now Mr. Doudna, given that both James Jenkins and William Law have both specifically disclaimed that Jenkins stated that he saw a hole in the top of JFK's head at the beginning of the autopsy, and given that Mr. Speer cannot produce even ONE example of what Speer claims were the "NUMEROUS TIMES" that Jenkins said that he saw a hole in the top of JFK's head at the beginning of the autopsy, why are you endorsing Pat Speer's numerous lies in this regard, especially when the purpose of the claims themselves is to substantiate that James Jenkins himself has told falsehoods about the historical record?  

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537022

 

Edited June 4 by Keven Hofeling

[Greg Doudna]

Keven do you regard the “vertex” and the “crown” as “top of the head”? 

In your view, did the large gaping wound include or not include the vertex and/or crown? 

In your view, did Jenkins intend to exclude the vertex and any part of the crown from his description of the large gaping wound he saw?

[Keven Hofeling]

On 5/30/2024 at 6:19 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Keven do you regard the “vertex” and the “crown” as “top of the head”? 

In your view, did the large gaping wound include or not include the vertex and/or crown? 

In your view, did Jenkins intend to exclude the vertex and any part of the crown from his description of the large gaping wound he saw?

You are now deploying one of the deflection techniques that Pat Speer is so well known for. You want me to answer your questions but then you answer my questions with more questions, and I am just not going to play that game with Speer or with any of his confederates, such as you.

Here is the question again:

Now Mr. Doudna, given that both James Jenkins and William Law have both specifically disclaimed that Jenkins stated that he saw a hole in the top of JFK's head at the beginning of the autopsy, and given that Mr. Speer cannot produce even ONE example of what Speer claims were the "NUMEROUS TIMES" that Jenkins said that he saw a hole in the top of JFK's head at the beginning of the autopsy, why are you endorsing Pat Speer's numerous lies in this regard, especially when the purpose of the claims themselves is to substantiate that James Jenkins himself has been less than forthcoming?  

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537022

 

Edited June 4 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

On 5/30/2024 at 4:24 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Keven you say Pat Speer accused Jenkins of lying but in your massive repeat dump which I just waded through for the nth time I could not find you ever quoted Pat using that word of Jenkins, even though that is your premise for your claimed point. Do you or do you not have a quotation using that word or is that that your paraphrase or interpretation of Pat? Can you clarify in simple declarative sentences? 

Also, I think Jenkins showing a large gaping wound at the top area of the rear of his head is within the semantic meaning of “top” of the head. 

Also, I disagree with your interpretation of Jenkins hand movement meaning, when he moved his hand lower on the back of the head from the higher position on the back of his head. The first, higher spread-hand position was the gaping wound he saw prior to the reconstruction of Robinson and co. Then when he moved his hand lower in the back that is when he referred to the “silver dollar” sized (or close to or a little larger) hole lower down that was after the reconstruction because the loose scalp did not go down that far after covering much or most of the gaping wound higher up. This is what I think Jenkins is saying and meaning.

Either show a quote where Pat called Jenkins a willful liar using that word or retract that attribution to Pat.

Lying does not mean changing a story or saying something that isn’t true (that is called being mistaken), it is doing so willfully in bad faith. Has Pat accused Jenkins of that? I doubt it, notwithstanding your repeated assertions that he has. 

You've done your confederate, Pat Speer, a great disservice by calling for examples of Speer maligning James Jenkins. Speer has been doing so for over a decade, and I am in the process of going through ALL of those posts, and that is going to take some time.

Compare this with how Speer is conducting himself. Sandy Larsen and I have asked him to produce just ONE example of what Speer has characterized as the "NUMEROUS TIMES" that James Jenkins has supposedly said that he saw "a hole in the top of the head" at the beginning of the autopsy, and Speer has not been able to come up with even ONE.

So while I am cataloguing all the instances that Mr. Speer has accused James Jenkins of being a prevaricator, and other such things, I think it falls upon YOU to come up with just ONE example of what Speer has characterized as the "NUMEROUS TIMES" that James Jenkins has supposedly said that he saw "a hole in the top of the head" at the beginning of the autopsy.

As you have imposed upon me such a monumental task, I also impose upon you the task of coming up with just ONE example of what Speer has characterized as the "NUMEROUS TIMES" that James Jenkins has supposedly said that he saw "a hole in the top of the head" at the beginning of the autopsy.

If you are going to designate yourself as the defender of Pat Speer's lies this way, I think it is the least you can do.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537022

 

Edited June 4 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

Well, you've confused me once again, Keven. Are you really trying to claim James Jenkins is NOT pointing to the top of his head in the photo above? 

And, if so, where the heck is he pointing?

Here?

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

Keven I am not defending Speer’s interpretation, only his right to argue his views without you smearing him.

I asked you to cite a quotation where Pat called Jenkins a liar, using that word, since you directly and repeatedly attributed that to Pat, as a premise for your point.

You have not been responsive to that request. You have also not clarified that that was your word or paraphrase, if so. Since Pat has spoken well of Jenkins on a personal level it is difficult for me to believe, without evidence, that Pat called Jenkins a liar, using that horrible word which goes well beyond saying someone is wrong or in error or mistaken. 

Will you clarify whether you have a quote—evidence—that Pat has called Jenkins a liar using that word, or will you clarify he never used that word that you put into his mouth? Simple question, straight answer requested. 

And the definition of “top of the head” you mean by that term, and understand Jenkins to mean, is a valid question, whether or not you declare you intend not to answer it. I have found that is not a carefully defined medical term. I am not even sure Jenkins, you, and Speer are even operating by the same definition and meaning. Are you?

Vertex and crown are carefully defined locations of the head. That is why I asked. Do you consider the gaping head wound, and the gaping wound described by Jenkins, to be in those areas of the head which do have good definitions? 

Incidentally I suspect Pat has overstated what comes across to me as denials of a rear of the head gaping wound. That is neither here nor there to my points at issue however. 

Please be responsive to legitimate questions asked. 

[Keven Hofeling]

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, you've confused me once again, Keven. Are you really trying to claim James Jenkins is NOT pointing to the top of his head in the photo above? 

And, if so, where the heck is he pointing?

Here?

 

 

William Law answered your question today:

 

 

 

[Keven Hofeling]

On 5/30/2024 at 7:26 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Keven I am not defending Speer’s interpretation, only his right to argue his views without you smearing him.

I asked you to cite a quotation where Pat called Jenkins a liar, using that word, since you directly and repeatedly attributed that to Pat, as a premise for your point.

You have not been responsive to that request. You have also not clarified that that was your word or paraphrase, if so. Since Pat has spoken well of Jenkins on a personal level it is difficult for me to believe, without evidence, that Pat called Jenkins a liar, using that horrible word which goes well beyond saying someone is wrong or in error or mistaken. 

Will you clarify whether you have a quote—evidence—that Pat has called Jenkins a liar using that word, or will you clarify he never used that word that you put into his mouth? Simple question, straight answer requested. 

And the definition of “top of the head” you mean by that term, and understand Jenkins to mean, is a valid question, whether or not you declare you intend not to answer it. I have found that is not a carefully defined medical term. I am not even sure Jenkins, you, and Speer are even operating by the same definition and meaning. Are you?

Vertex and crown are carefully defined locations of the head. That is why I asked. Do you consider the gaping head wound, and the gaping wound described by Jenkins, to be in those areas of the head which do have good definitions? 

Incidentally I suspect Pat has overstated what comes across to me as denials of a rear of the head gaping wound. That is neither here nor there to my points at issue however. 

Please be responsive to legitimate questions asked. 

Can't you read, Mr. Doudna? And why are you again attempting to answer my questions with yet more questions?

The following is what you have apparently missed somehow...

You've done your confederate, Pat Speer, a great disservice by calling for examples of Speer maligning James Jenkins. Speer has been doing so for over a decade, and I am in the process of going through ALL of those posts, and that is going to take some time.

Compare this with how Speer is conducting himself. Sandy Larsen and I have asked him to produce just ONE example of what Speer has characterized as the "NUMEROUS TIMES" that James Jenkins has supposedly said that he saw "a hole in the top of the head" at the beginning of the autopsy, and Speer has not been able to come up with even ONE.

So while I am cataloguing all the instances that Mr. Speer has accused James Jenkins of being a prevaricator, and other such things, I think it falls upon YOU to come up with just ONE example of what Speer has characterized as the "NUMEROUS TIMES" that James Jenkins has supposedly said that he saw "a hole in the top of the head" at the beginning of the autopsy.

As you have imposed upon me such a monumental task, I also impose upon you the task of coming up with just ONE example of what Speer has characterized as the "NUMEROUS TIMES" that James Jenkins has supposedly said that he saw "a hole in the top of the head" at the beginning of the autopsy.

If you are going to designate yourself as the defender of Pat Speer's lies this way, I think it is the least you can do.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537022

 

Edited June 4 by Keven Hofeling

[Greg Doudna]

2 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

You've done your confederate, Pat Speer, a great disservice by calling for examples of Speer maligning James Jenkins. Speer has been doing so for over a decade, and I am in the process of going through ALL of those posts, and that is going to take some time.

I am not a confederate of Speer, just stop that. And I did not “call for examples of Speer maligning James Jenkins”.

You repeatedly claimed Speer said Jenkins was a liar, using that word. I called for you to document that.

Don’t deflect by asking me to defend something else Speer said. Defend what YOU attributed to Speer. 

If you don’t have any quotation of Speer calling Jenkins that, why not just say so? Doesn’t it bother you that some might misunderstand, when you repeatedly say Pat called some luminary a liar, that some people might believe Pat called that person a “liar”, because that is how your wording sounds?

Why your reluctance to just tell the accurate truth on this detail in the interests of being clear with the truth and avoiding misrepresentation of Pat? 

[Keven Hofeling]

10 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I am not a confederate of Speer, just stop that. And I did not “call for examples of Speer maligning James Jenkins”.

You repeatedly claimed Speer said Jenkins was a liar, using that word. I called for you to document that.

Don’t deflect by asking me to defend something else Speer said. Defend what YOU attributed to Speer. 

If you don’t have any quotation of Speer calling Jenkins that, why not just say so? Doesn’t it bother you that some might misunderstand, when you repeatedly say Pat called some luminary a liar, that some people might believe Pat called that person a “liar”, because that is how your wording sounds?

Why your reluctance to just tell the accurate truth on this detail in the interests of being clear with the truth and avoiding misrepresentation of Pat? 

I've been at my computer all day and I'm calling it a night. I could care less how anxious you are for an immediate answer, you can just stew on it all night for all I care.

Pat Speer has been claiming that James Jenkins started lying about his descriptions of the head wound starting in 2016, and so I've got eight years of posts to go through starting tomorrow morning.

If you don't like it, then sue me...

[David Von Pein]

IN DECEMBER 2015 [LINK], SANDY LARSEN SAID:

Almost every witness to Kennedy's head wound said that there was a large hole on the rear right side of the head. Dr. Aguliar lists over forty of them, all of them professionals and most of them medical professionals. Some of them changed their minds when they were told that the autopsy photos showed no hole on the back of Kennedy's head. Others held their ground and insisted that the photos had been doctored.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sandy,

But what about the Zapruder Film? It most certainly does NOT show a big hole in the BACK of President Kennedy's head. In the Z-Film, the exit wound in JFK's head is clearly located toward the FRONT and RIGHT SIDE of the head, above the President's right ear....



So that makes THREE separate areas of photographic evidence which all corroborate each other with respect to the location of the large wound in President Kennedy's head:

1. The autopsy photos.

2. The autopsy X-rays.

3. The Zapruder Film.



Do you, Sandy, really think that ALL THREE of the above pieces of photographic (visual) evidence are fake in this case?

If so, that's a heck of a lot of fakery you've got to prove. And so far, no one has come close to proving that ANY of those three photographic items have been faked or altered.

And there's also the fact that the closest witnesses to the head shot in Dealey Plaza, who had a good view of the RIGHT side of JFK's head as it was exploding in front of them, said things in their first interviews on WFAA-TV on 11/22/63 that support the idea that the President's large head (exit) wound was located just exactly where we find it in the autopsy photos and X-rays and in the Zapruder Film---i.e., above JFK's right ear. Those witnesses include Abraham Zapruder himself and Bill and Gayle Newman....
 

  Edited May 31 by David Von Pein

[Jean Ceulemans]

8 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

 

Pat Speer has been claiming that James Jenkins started lying about his descriptions of the head wound starting in 2016, and so I've got eight years of posts to go through starting tomorrow morning.

 

Perhaps you should have done that before starting this mess?

[Paul Cummings]

4 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Perhaps you should have done that before starting this mess?

Holding someone accountable isn't starting a mess.

Edited May 31 by Paul Cummings

[Jean Ceulemans]

43 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

Holding someone accountable isn't starting a mess.

IMO,  it is when mod´s start having their own discussions on it being a semantics thing or not, at the same time the name-calling (the "fraudelent liar" etc thing) goes on... and the mod´s ignore that pffft.  Greg asked same clear to-the-point questions, K doesn´t even want to answer them and replies with the same txts and pictures he has posted over and over again... So now Greg´s called a confederate, I´m a bootlicker,... the list goes on. What level of intellect is that??  Zero, and IMO that´s a mess.  But I´m fine with you feeling different about that, no problem

JCeulemans  (according some a  member of the PSBC)

 

Edited May 31 by Jean Ceulemans