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

[Chris Bristow]

10 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

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. 

.
"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. "

Can I get a clarification? I can't reconcile these two statements.    
"Jenkins placed the wound entirely above the right ear,"  AND  "that the open wound was above the “occipital area”
The closest the occipital bone itself comes to the ear is about 1 inch posterior to it. "Entirely above the ear" is parietal. Doesn't "entirely" mean  directly above or that all of the wound was above the ear? I don't get how that is consistent with the wound being "above the occipital area." The occipital area is a bit vague but it would have to extend forward of the crown of the head to also be above the ear. I'm not sure why the term occipital would be used for an area on top of the head, above the ear, and a couple inches forward of the crown.   
 Does "above the ear" just refer to how high the wound was and "above the occipital area" refer to a position behind the ear in the back of the head? 

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

How about you post my entire comment from the Gordon thread instead of one quote taken out of context?

 

You want to post your entire comment because it obfuscates what our debate is about.

Our debate is about where James Jenkins placed the gaping head wound. It is NOT about where the wound actually was. The reason for the distinction is that Keven Hofeling's thread was all about where Jenkins placed the wound. And I penalized Pat Speer for posting false information about where Jenkins placed the wound. None of that stuff back then was about the actual location of the wound.

But if you want me to put the comment of yours that I quoted into context, that's fine... I'll be happy to. Here is the complete paragraph, with the bolded sentence being the one I quoted:

 

19 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

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.

 

As anybody can see, the sentence I quoted stands alone and is not affected by the remaining sentences of the paragraph. That is to say, the context makes no difference.

So Tom, do you still believe that Jenkins placed the wound on the top of the head? Ever? If so, what evidence do you have that he did?

I believe you have zero evidence of that.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

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

 

I feel the same way, Jean. Which is why I thinks members shouldn't be allowed to post demonstrable falsehoods.

 

Edited Friday at 01:03 PM by Sandy Larsen

[Jonathan Cohen]

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Which is why I thinks members shouldn't be allowed to post demonstrable falsehoods.

Clearly, your definition of "demonstrable falsehoods" is not shared by the majority of members here - hence your removal as a moderator.

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Can I get a clarification? I can't reconcile these two statements.    
"Jenkins placed the wound entirely above the right ear,"  AND  "that the open wound was above the “occipital area”

 

Chris,

You need to be careful with what Tom Gram says because certain authors he gets his information from combined multiple James Jenkins statements, separated by ellipses, without noting that they were about different aspects of the head wound. For example, Jenkins talked about the gaping wound on the back of the head -- in which he originally thought that the whole back of the head had been blasted off -- till the scalp was reflected -- at  which time he could see that the hole was only about the size of a fist. In addition, he also spoke about the silver-dollar-sized hole that remained after the morticians had completed reassembling the head. He also talked about the skull fragments located on top of the head.

Instead of trying to figure out these mixed-wound statements, which are further complicated by somebody (Tom?) paraphrasing them, all anyone needs to do is read what Jenkins said in his 2018 book and what he said in his 1991 interview with Livingstone. Relevant quotes from these sources are conveniently located in posts #2 and #3 of this thread.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

35 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Clearly, your definition of "demonstrable falsehoods" is not shared by the majority of members here - hence your removal as a moderator.

 

Fact: James Jenkins said the gaping wound was on the back of the head and was the size of a fist. This is proved below with Jenkins' own words.

Fact: Pat Speer said that James Jenkins placed the wound on the top of the head. But Pat has absolutely no evidence or proof of that being the case!

Conclusion 1: What Pat said is a demonstrable falsehood.

Conclusion 2: My definition of demonstrable falsehood is the same as what the dictionary dictates. The small handful of members here who believe otherwise are mistaken.

 

 

Proof that James Jenkins placed the wound on the back of the head, and NOT the top:

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

James Jenkins said:  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."

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

Sandy, you have been repeatedly asserting a demonstrable falsehood yourself--that Jenkins never said he saw gaping wound at the top of the head.

Here you go:

"The hair was bloody and matted together so I didn't see the massive damage to his head at first glance. As Dr. Humes removed the wrappings from the head, the wound gaped open along a laceration that ran forward along the top of the head, but immediately closed when it was separated from the bottom wrappings which appeared to be towels. The first appearance of the head wound was deceiving..." (James Jenkins, At the Cold Shoulder of History [2018], pp. 14-15).

Here is a question: do you believe what Jenkins reported as seeing (in the quote from his book above, his first visual of the head of JFK) represented actual wound or artificially surgically created post-death of JFK?

But either way, he said at the beginning of the autopsy he saw wound "gaped open along a laceration that ran forward along the top of the head".

On 6/25/2024 at 6:17 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

The truth is that Jenkins NEVER placed the wound at the top of the head. Never.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy, you have been repeatedly asserting a demonstrable falsehood yourself--that Jenkins never said he saw gaping wound at the top of the head.

 

I didn't say that Jenkins never SAW a gaping wound at the top of the head. I said he never PLACED the gaping wound at the top of the head.

Apparently you didn't even read my proof in post #2, the proof being Jenkins own words. Because had you done so, you'd realize a big mistake you are making in this here post.

I will explain:

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Here you go:

"The hair was bloody and matted together so I didn't see the massive damage to his head at first glance. As Dr. Humes removed the wrappings from the head, the wound gaped open along a laceration that ran forward along the top of the head, but immediately closed when it was separated from the bottom wrappings which appeared to be towels. The first appearance of the head wound was deceiving..." (James Jenkins, At the Cold Shoulder of History [2018], pp. 14-15).

 

Oh yeah, Jenkins did believe when they first removed the towels that the whole back of Kennedy's head had been blown off, along with some other damage to the head. But after the scalp had been reflected, he could more easily assess the extent of the wound. What he discovered was that the size of the wound wasn't as large as he originally thought, and in fact was about the size of a closed fist. And it was located roughly where McClelland's drawing shows the wound.

You'd know that had you kept reading the book. What I've highlighted in red above should have tipped you off to do just that.

For your convenience, here again is my proof, i.e. James Jenkins own words. The part in red explains what I just informed you of:

 

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.]

 

[Greg Doudna]

Sandy, let me get this straight: he said he saw gaping wound at the top of the head, using those words, but you say he never “placed” (located) gaping wound at the top of the head where he saw it was, including at the time he says he saw gaping wound there?

I realize you are focusing on the large hole Jenkins put at the upper right of the rear of the head (top of the rear/right), which Jenkins said was higher than McClellan put it, which Jenkins and you call “back” of the head and which Pat and Tom mean when they say “top” (of the rear), in order to distinguish from “lower” back of the head aka “back” of the head, none of these terms being well-defined by you.

I acknowledge that. But your absolutism that Jenkins never “placed” any part of gaping wound at the “top” (in his words) of the head wasn’t disclosed by you not to be exactly correct, and continues even now to be denied by you on the unbelievable hairsplitting claim that someone reporting seeing gaping wound at location Y on a body is not “placing” that which that person reports seeing at that location Y. Either there was gaping wound where Jenkins said he saw such or there wasn’t. I’m not saying that was his hole there. Only that you overstated your claim. 

Will you agree that Jenkins “located” gaping wound at the top (his word) of the head, even if you deny that he “placed” gaping wound there?

Do you think the gaping wound Jenkins saw located on the “top” (his wording) of the head was connected to the hole at the upper rear? I.e. was it part of the same wound, or two different wounds, do you think, and which do you think Jenkins thought it was?

If it was part of the same wound, then it did, in fact, include what JENKINS observed and located unambiguously as on the top (his wording) of the head. And the larger “hole” Jenkins referred to as “rear” of the head higher than McClellan had it, can be called top or back of the head in reference to Jenkins’ actual position of it, as distinguished from the one of those two words Jenkins used. 

But I don’t think you or anyone is disputing that Jenkins at least some of the time put the hole higher than McClellan and others put it. 

And if that high-on-the-right-rear hole was connected to gaping wound stretching across the top of the head to the front as Jenkins says he SAW was THE CASE, then possibly Pat could not be so far off after all in interpreting it as one tangential hit with massive damage instead of a through and through with separate entrance and exit bullet holes? 

Edited Friday at 07:17 PM by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

When the towels were taken off of Kennedy's head at Bethesda, with all the dried blood and matted hair, it looked to James Jenkins like the whole back of the head was blown off. But later, when the scalp was reflected, Jenkins discovered that he was wrong. With the scalp reflected he could see that the hole (through the scalp and bone) was much smaller, about the size of a closed fist. When asked about it decades later, Jenkins placed the hole at close to the same place as McClelland did in his drawing. Maybe a little higher, according to Jenkins.

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy, let me get this straight: he said he saw gaping wound at the top of the head, using those words, but you say he never “placed” (located) gaping wound at the top of the head where he saw it was, including at the time he says he saw gaping wound there?

 

At first Jenkins thought the whole back of Kennedy's head was gone. But later in the autopsy, when the scalp was reflected, he could see that he had been mistaken

Jenkins never said there was a wound that extended to the top of the head because there wasn't one. That was just an early mistake that he'd made.

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

I realize you are focusing on the large hole Jenkins put at the upper right of the rest of the head (top of the rear/right), which Jenkins said was higher than McClellan put it, which Jenkins and you call “back” of the head and which Pat and Tom mean when they say “top” (of the rear), in order to distinguish from “lower” back of the head aka “back” of the head, none of these terms being well-defined by you.

 

These statements are all irrelevant because this debate is only about where Jenkins placed the hole... top or back. He always said back and never said top. And for good reason. He said it was about the same place McClelland had placed the wound in his drawing. "A little higher, maybe" according to Jenkins.

No reasonable person would say that that wound, even if moved a little higher, was on the top of the head.

But, as I said, this is irrelevant. This debate is only about whether or not Jenkins ever said the wound was on top. He never did.

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Will you agree that Jenkins “located” gaping wound at the top (his word) of the head, even if you deny that he “placed” gaping wound there?

 

No, I will not agree to that because there was no such wound! As I keep telling you, Jenkins was mistaken about that being the wound. He discovered he was mistaken when they reflected the scalp and he got a better look.

If you continue reading the book beyond the part that you quoted, you will discover that he realized later in the autopsy, after the scalp was reflected, that he was mistaken about the size of the wound. He discovered that it did NOT extend to the top of the head, and actually was much smaller -- the size of a fist -- and was located where McClelland placed in on his drawing... maybe a little higher.

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Do you think the gaping wound Jenkins saw located on the “top” (his wording) of the head was connected to the hole at the upper rear? I.e. was it part of the same wound, or two different wounds, do you think, and which do you think Jenkins thought it was?

If it was part of the same wound, then it did, in fact, include what JENKINS observed and located unambiguously as on the top (his wording) of the head. And the larger “hole” Jenkins referred to as “rear” of the head higher than McClellan had it, can be called top or back of the head in reference to Jenkins’ actual position of it, as distinguished from the one of those two words Jenkins used. 

But I don’t think you or anyone is disputing that Jenkins at least some of the time put the hole higher than McClellan and others put it. 

And if that high-on-the-right-rear hole was connected to gaping wound stretching across the top of the head to the front as Jenkins says he SAW was THE CASE, then possibly Pat could not be so far off after all in interpreting it as one tangential hit with massive damage instead of a through and through with separate entrance and exit bullet holes? 

 

There is no no need to go on with your speculating about two gaping holes, etc. Just read the book. You will find nothing more that what I've told you.

 

[Greg Doudna]

Wait a minute Sandy. You are saying there WAS NO gaping wound where Jenkins SAYS he saw such (on the top of the head?) 

I don’t read Jenkins as saying his observation was in error. I read Jenkins as saying that observation could be and was misleading in how it could be or was interpreted. But not that Jenkins was saying he imagined or hallucinated what he said he saw. I think you are not reading his meaning correctly.

If he was saying he had personally hallucinated seeing something which was not true, if that was his meaning as per you, he would have used language such as “I mistakenly thought I saw…” or made it explicit: “I realize now I never saw what I at first that day thought I had seen”, etc. he does not.

He saw something on the top of the head, a gaping line of laceration that closed up when the wrapping was pulled away.

I sure don’t read Jenkins as saying his observation itself was imagined or mistaken. He was cautioning against a mistaken interpretation of what he saw, WHICH EXISTED. 

“The wound gaped open along a laceration that ran forward along the top of the head, but immediately closed when it was separated from the bottom wrappings…”

His point is that was deceptive in wrongly giving the impression the huge hole was there, when really he came to realize it was farther back. But he is NOT saying he imagined or hallucinated what he reports as observation, ie gaping wound “along the top of the head”, which appears to be an extension of the “hole” wound.

This has now become an issue of reading comprehension. I am willing to be shown wrong if others explain so. But I do NOT read Jenkins as saying he only imagined what he said he saw on the top of the head. Honestly, I think you are misreading—mis-exegeting—Jenkins on this. 

I agree Jenkins did not put the hole where he says he saw gaping wound along a laceration running forward on the top of the head.

But Jenkins DID report seeing gaping wound on the top of the head. It’s there in black and white. And he is not telling the reader or meaning he was hallucinating what he says he saw.

[Greg Doudna]

35 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jenkins never said there was a wound that extended to the top of the head because there wasn't one. That was just an early mistake that he'd made.

(…)

No, I will not agree to that because there was no such wound! As I keep telling you, Jenkins was mistaken about that being the wound. He discovered he was mistaken when they reflected the scalp and he got a better look.

This is the point of disagreement. There was such a wound on top as explicitly described by Jenkins from his personal observation. Jenkins was contesting a misinterpretation of that observation. He was not contesting the existence of what he said he saw.

Do you accept that “the wound gaped open along a laceration” is witness testimony to a wound?

Do you accept that “ran forward along the top of the head” is a reference to the top of the head?

By your logic (that Jenkins hallucinated the observation itself and never actually saw what he says he saw), how do you suppose such a hallucination happened, and why does Jenkins never explicitly say, “I realize I never saw what I was sure I did see at the time on the top of the head”? or words to that effect?

I don’t think Jenkins is denying the observation itself that he tells. I do not believe that is an accurate or reasonable reading of authorial sense and meaning. 

[Greg Doudna]

And I did read the rest of the book, and the rest of the book supports Jenkins was not describing a personal hallucination in describing SEEING gaping along a laceration on top of the head. The reason this can be known not hallucinated by Jenkins is because he refers to the autopsists seeing those lacerations and Jenkins suggests that was the cause of a mistaken interpretation by the autopsists that there was a hole on top. 

Something was there. Jenkins and the others all saw it. Jenkins’ point is he says the observation was misinterpreted, not that it was hallucinated. 

Edited Friday at 08:17 PM by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

15 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

And I did read the rest of the book, and the rest of the book supports Jenkins was not describing a personal hallucination in describing SEEING gaping along a laceration on top of the head. The reason this can be known not hallucinated by Jenkins is because he refers to the autopsists seeing those lacerations and Jenkins suggests that was the cause of a mistaken interpretation by the autopsists that there was a hole on top. 

Something was there. Jenkins and the others all saw it. Jenkins’ point is he says the observation was misinterpreted, not that it was hallucinated. 

 

Greg,

I believe you are suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias.

From the same book that you say you've read, here is James Jenkins in the conclusion of his book saying what he saw. It is in complete agreement with everything I've told you, and in disagreement with what you've told me:

 

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

James Jenkins said: 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.]

[Greg Doudna]

Sandy your later quote from Jenkins does not contradict or repudiate his earlier reported OBSERVATION of gaping around a laceration running on the TOP of the head. Your quote doesn’t even mention the top of the head. You are reading this later from Jenkins as repudiating the truthfulness or accuracy of his earlier reported OBSERVATION which Jenkins is not doing nor does he intend the reader to read him that way. This is basic reading comprehension. 

That’s like saying person X never saw Y on the top of the head as he said he did, proven because over here he said ABC about the back of the head. It is a logical non sequitur.