Where did James Jenkins really place the gaping head wound -- Debate challenge for Tom Gram!

[Sandy Larsen]

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Begin Debate

I will begin the debate.

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

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

Now, for my argument....

 

Edited Tuesday at 01:41 PM by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

 

 James Jenkins' Description of the Gaping Head Wound

 

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

The entire area was covered with matted hair and dried blood. This made it difficult to determine the true extent of the wound. This made it appear to be a massive blowout of the back of the head, but after the scalp was reflected back from the skull, the wound that had missing scalp and bone appeared to be more consistent with the shape and dimensions previously described by Dr. McClelland. [From p. 121 of the Kindle book.]

This is the wound drawing that Dr. McClelland made to illustrate the wound he saw at Parkland in 1963. This closely matches the wound that I saw after the scalp was retracted from the skull. [From p. 129 of the Kindle book.]

 

 

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

I would like to kind of reverse a little bit and go back to what the wound looked like when we actually took the towels off the head at the initial. The wound was a massive type of wound where it was an open gaping wound approximately the size of a closed fist or maybe a little larger, more similar to what Dr. McClelland says in his drawing. ...as far as the area that it was in, I remember the wound a little higher maybe than in the drawing."

 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 01:20 PM by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

 

 After Reconstruction  (Optional Reading)

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

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

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

 

James Jenkins' Description of the Silver Dollar Sized Reconstruction Hole

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 01:19 PM by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

 

I invite Tom to reply.

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

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

Tom Gram's Reply:

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

Why are threads allowed here that call out specific forum members? I thought we were mercifully done with those following Sandy Larsen's removal as a moderator.

[Sandy Larsen]

Jonathan,

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

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

 

Edited Tuesday at 01:55 PM by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Gram]

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

I prefer to research the JFK case vs. quibbling over and over again about the definitions of “top” and “back”, but I’ll humor you on this “topic” one last time. 

The issue here, that eventually led to you losing your moderator status, was whether or not some of Jenkins’ gestures and statements could be reasonably described as indicating a wound at the “top of the head”. You disagreed, and claimed that because Pat used the phrase ”top of the head” to describe Jenkins’ wound placement on certain occasions, he must be deliberately lying. 

This is a Jenkins quote from High Treason 2: 

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

The literal definition of “occipital area” is “the back of the head or skull”. What in your mind is “above the back of the head or skull”? Could it be, gasp… the top of the head? 

Your own quote has Jenkins saying he thought the wound was higher than the wound in the McClelland drawing. The wound in the McClelland drawing already extends well into the cowlick region. 

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

It all comes down to a simple question, that neither you nor Keven ever answered, despite being asked multiple times: 

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

Did Jenkins place the wound at the top of the back of the head, or was it the back of the top of the head?! Was it a wound extending from the back of the head towards the top, or extending from the top of the head towards the back?! 

Who cares? 

If you want to continue to evangelize about semantic nonsense be my guest, but there is nothing here to “debate”. How many threads have now been started on this ridiculous topic? 7? 8? 

Get over it. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:37 PM by Tom Gram

[Sandy Larsen]

34 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

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

 

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

 

34 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

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

 

The topic of the debate is where did James Jenkins place the gaping wound. Not was the wound on the back of the head or the top. So you're question is irrelevant.

Nice deflection, though.

 

34 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

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

 

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

 

34 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

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

 

One.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

This is a Jenkins quote from High Treason 2: 

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

 

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

1. Jenkins is talking about the skull fragments on the top of the head, above the gaping wound. Irrelevant.
2. Jenkins is talking about the silver-dollar-sized hole that the morticians created when they reassembled the head. Irrelevant.
3. Jenkins is talking about the gaping wound on the back of the head. This is the correct wound, but the statement doesn't indicate where the wound is. So it is aslo irrelevant.

 

Here are some Jenkins quotations from other Livingstone interviews, also from High Treason 2:

• I looked at the back of the head, but all I saw was the massive gaping wound.
• There was a hole in all of it [the scalp and the bone]. There was a hole in the occipital-parietal area.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

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

 

Show me one video where Jenkins is pointing to the top of his head. One that has audio so we know what he is pointing to.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

As I said at the beginning of this debate, Tom Gram claimed that James Jenkins himself said that the blowout wound was on the top of Kennedy's head. Here are Tom's exact words

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

And yet Tom can't find a single instance of Jenkins ever placing the wound there. He lost the debate.

So why did Tom -- a normally exceptional researcher and respected member of the forum -- ever think such an erroneous thing about James Jenkins? I'll tell you why. Tom got his misinformation from Pat Speer. And he believed it.

My primary purpose for challenging Tom to this debate was to demonstrate why it is important to have a forum rule against posting demonstrably false information.

We should want our members NOT to be exposed to false information when it can be avoided.

 

Edited Thursday at 12:24 PM by Sandy Larsen

[Jonathan Cohen]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

We should want our members NOT to be exposed to false information when it can be avoided.

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

[Sandy Larsen]

20 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

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

 

I hope you have a nice day, too, Jonathan.

 

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

As I said at the beginning of this debate, Tom Gram claimed that James Jenkins himself said that the blowout wound was on the top of Kennedy's head. Here are Tom's exact words

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

And yet Tom can't find a single instance of Jenkins ever placing the wound there. He lost the debate.

So why did Tom -- a normally exceptional researcher and respected member of the forum -- ever think such an erroneous thing about James Jenkins? I'll tell you why. Tom got his misinformation from Pat Speer. And he believed it.

My primary purpose for challenging Tom to this debate was to demonstrate why it is important to have a forum rule against posting demonstrably false information.

We should want our members NOT to be exposed to false information when it can be avoided.

 

Nice try. 

How about you post my entire comment from the Gordon thread instead of one quote taken out of context? I’ll help you out: 

You must be kidding. I did call out Keven breaking the rules, and so did Jean Paul, for insulting, slandering, and accusing another forum member of being a liar. I also specifically mentioned Keven’s stupid meme that said “you keep listening to their lying ass anyway”, or some juvenile crap like that. 

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that no one bothered to go through the actual reporting process because of a certain moderator that was protecting Keven and defending his every word. To be honest, I don’t even know how to formally report someone. You also broke forum rules yourself by calling Jean Paul a bootlicker - a personal insult that he strongly objected to.

It does absolutely matter where you believe the back of the head ends and the top of the head begins. In fact that is the only relevant issue here. Why? 

Jenkins placed the wound entirely above the right ear, on the back of the top of the head (or is it the top of the back of the head?), multiple times. In the video where he points out “the open hole” that led to this whole fiasco, he is pointing entirely to the rear parietal bone. In the 1991 video it’s the same deal - maybe slightly more temporal. Jenkins also made statements indicating the same, that the open wound was above the “occipital area” i.e. above the back of the head. I’m still waiting on your proof that Pat misquoted Jenkins.  

According to you and Keven, Pat cannot interpret Jenkins placing the hole entirely above the right ear, and entirely above the occipital bone, as the top of the head. He cannot truly believe that, and thus his saying so on this forum must be a willful lie. Your entire argument is based on the semantic distinction between the top and back of the head. So I’ll ask again. Where exactly, in your interpretation of anatomy, does the back of the head end, and the top of the head begin? 

Pat seems to believe that a wound above the right ear, entirely above the occipital bone, is better described as the top of the head vs. the back of the head. I would call it the back side of the top of the head, which is the language Pat uses on his website. However, there is no forum rule against using anatomically unspecific terms. Your “lie by omission” justification is a joke. The burden is on you to prove that Pat cannot truly believe that the “top of the head” is a reasonable and accurate description of Jenkins’ placement of the wound. I agree with Pat. Does that make me a liar too? 

Even Keven admitted that Jenkins placed the wound “slightly higher than the occiput” - which literally means “slightly higher than the back of the head”.  I didn’t see the original comment, but I’m assuming Keven said something similar, and subsequently jumped on the opportunity to accuse Pat of lying to further his censorship crusade when Pat said he’d agreed with Jenkins placement of the wound.  What is “slightly higher than the occiput”, in your mind? The top of the back of the head? The back of the top of the head? Do you see how stupid this all is? 

Lastly, I did read Keven’s so-called proofs and they are for the most part shockingly irrelevant with a few exceptions that could reasonably be interpreted as Pat being selective in his presentation of certain evidence - that one Jenkins video. Pat provided a perfectly reasonable explanation and updated his website. Big deal. 

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

Without a precise definition of the top of the head, and the back of the head, and without some impossible proof that your definitions are superior to Pat’s, and without precise knowledge of what Pat honestly believes, you accusing Pat of willfully lying and suspending him for it for using the phrase “top of the head” to describe Jenkins placement of the wound is a worse violation of forum rules than…etc. etc. etc. 

This is why we have a forum rule against posting demonstrably false information. I never “started a debate” with you about where Jenkins placed the wound. I called you out for your ridiculous behavior and highlighted your moronic, purely semantic “argument” against Pat that led to you (rightfully) losing your status as a moderator. 

[Jean Ceulemans]

Thank you @Tom Gram for this clear and clean reply on what is was really about.

If they had only behaved like gentlemen, it would have largely gone fine. Just guys having different opinions, as happens all the time.

But when they used the namecalling, the terrible accusations, they crossed a line, why ? I don´t have a clue, even going so far as to include someones mental condition, that was an all-time low here IMO.

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

I had hoped everybody could move on, once that some appropriate measures were taken.  But... some people will never let anything go (when they feel... euhhh... whatever it is they are feeling.. don´t know).

Keep up the good work!

 

Edited 23 hours ago by Jean Ceulemans