Pat Speer

Thanks, Keven. Can we be civil, then, and acknowledge that Jenkins' recollections are a clear challenge to Horne's theory?

WOW. I'm sorry Sandy but I think I'm gonna have to start ignoring your posts. You're not following the discussion so to speak and are just venting about how you don't trust me. Fine. But the image you say I cherry-picked comes from a taped interview by Law, and the image you say I cherry-picked is one Law picked out and put in his book to demonstrate where Jenkins pointed when he described the open hole he first observed...that was put up on this website by Keven to challenge a screen grab I'd made from this video from a split-second earlier, where the hand was in a slightly different location. IOW, the image you say I posted to deceive you is one Keven posted to claim I was being deceptive. It is Keven's evidence so to speak, not mine. But I am glad he posted it because it proved my point...which apparently you now concede. So... from my perspective you suspended me for claiming Jenkins pointed to the top of his head when describing the wound location, and for claiming Keven's posts had verified as much. And now, with this post, you have shown I was correct. You have conceded my point. Thanks, I think.

Just stop. When asked to show where the hole was in his 1998 interview with Law, Jenkins pointed to the top of his head--the top of his head towards the rear--but nevertheless the top of his head. When he spoke to a crowd of researchers at the 2013 conference, he told everyone there essentially the same thing...the hole was near the top of the back of the head, and the area below that was shattered but still extant beneath the scalp. This is basically what Custer said towards the end as well. Now the point I've been making all along is that Jenkins changed it up in his book, and switched it around where the hole was at the middle of the back of the head, and the area above that was shattered but extant beneath the scalp. Now these are just the facts. But for some reason Horne supporters like yourself are determined to pretend Jenkins saw a hole in the middle of the back of the head. Which to me, is just bizarre, because even if that were true, Jenkins would still not be a friendly witness for Horne. Jenkins has specified many times that he was in the morgue the whole time and that no pre-autopsy surgery was performed in the Bethesda Morgue. And Horne has countered this by claiming Jenkins had a terrible memory and was actually kept out of the morgue for an hour and a half while this surgery was performed. If this is so, however, Jenkins would need to have seen a large wound on Kennedy's skull from the middle of the back of the skull to the forehead and not the small wound.he claims to have seen. In 1998 he said the wound was a little bit bigger than a silver dollar and in 2018 he said it was basically the size of the wound in the McClelland drawing, which upset Horne's long-time colleague James Fetzer so much he screamed at Jenkins from the crowd at the Lancer conference. To be clear, Horne's theory held that his presumed pre-autopsy surgery expanded the size of the wound by 5 times. And yet here was Jenkins actually saying the wound had not been expanded at all. In a bizarre twist, moreover, McClelland, over the years, started describing the wound in ever-expansive terms, to the extent that the wound described by McClelland in his final years was bigger than the wound described by Jenkins. Well, this kills Horne's theory, IMO. Now, he could, of course, claim these were old men and badly mistaken or some such thing but for some reason his supporters, including yourself, have tried to turn it around and make out that I am the one making strange claims about Jenkins to support my theory or whatever. I mean, did I give an interview to an international TV audience in which I claimed James Jenkins said he saw a bullet hole in JFK's forehead? No, that was Horne. Now the last time I tried to point all this out to you you couldn't handle it, and suspended me, and then suspended anyone who disagreed with your behavior. But that's not gonna happen this time. So...seriously...are you really trying to claim Jenkins was pointing to this when he did this? I thought not...

A couple of quick points. (I'm off to a museum and don't have time for a detailed response, but saw a comment that I could give a quick response to.) The 1998 interview with Law was taped, and the images in Law's book come from the tape. I either had this tape or found it online, because I did a quick screen grab of where his hand was located when he described the hole, and put it on my website. Someone compared that image to what Law put in his book and claimed I was lying or some such thing, because the hand in Law's photo was maybe an inch or so further to the back (but still not on the far back of the head). In any event, while looking for this tape/DVD, I did find a DVD in my collection which included the second half of this interview, in which Jenkins once again points out the location, but also points out the SIZE of the hole as first observed. And I share this below. (Long story short...Jenkins' recollections are toxic to Horne's theory, which holds that the entire top of Kennedy's head had been removed in pre-autopsy surgery before Jenkins saw the body...)

James Jenkins is open-minded about pre-autopsy surgery of some kind being held elsewhere. He is an accommodating guy and doesn't want to upset those studying the case. But he could not abide Horne's claiming he was kept out of the morgue for an hour and a half after the body had arrived. He knew that wasn't true. As an exercise, let's move the proposed malfeasance to Parkland. Some (seriously wrong people, IMO) have ventured that Perry finished JFK off at Parkland. Now, let's say McClelland got wind of this and said "I know this didn't happen because I was standing right there." And then these theorists said "Well, McClelland's memory is faulty--he actually came in 20 minutes after the body arrived--after Perry had done his dirty work." Well, if something like this occurred, virtually every JFK researcher would write the "Perry did it" theory off as fantasy, and throw it on the rubbish heap. But that hasn't happened with Horne. And there are a number of reasons for this, IMO. 1. Horne wrote a detailed 4-volume series on the assassination, and some (most) people are impressed with such things. The sheer size and detail of the work leads them to think there must be something to it. We saw a similar response to Bugliosi's book. Those inclined to believe Oswald did it, and even some on the fence, wrote rave reviews about how he'd answered all the questions. When his book had done nothing of the sort... 2. Since the early days of the research community, there has been an anti-military bias. The Vietnam War was not popular, and people were primed to believe the military was involved. In Horne's theory, the military is central to the plot, super sneaky, and super effective. 3. The many conflicting interpretations of the photographic evidence and medical evidence has led to frustration, where a large number of researchers have become drawn to the belief the evidence is fake. Well, Horne's theories involve much fakery. 4. Today's political climate, where people are primed to believe everything is fake. In any event, whatever the reason, Horne's theory appears to be growing in influence. He was presented as the voice of authority in the film JFK: What the Doctors Saw, which received international distribution, and which will serve as an introduction to the case for millions of newbies in the years to come. Now in the film Horne claimed James Jenkins saw a bullet hole high on Kennedy's forehead, which simply wasn't true. He even pointed out the supposed location for the cameras...and it was right where Michael Chesser has recently claimed he found a bullet hole on the x-rays. Well, this set off an alarm bell to my inner conspiracy theorist--that these guys are engaged in a hoax. And I said some negative things about the film in an email group comprising some scholars and journalists. And this led to an invite from Jeff Morley for me to write a more restrained commentary for his website JFK Facts. And I did so. I was told at the time that mine was one of two negative reviews for the film published on Jeff's site.. Now, within a week or two, someone joined this forum in full attack mode. And I assumed this person was familiar with my negative review of JFK: What the Doctors Saw, and had come here to silence me. And that he was quite possibly not acting on his own. Now...I could be wrong about this. And I could be wrong about Horne's intentions when he lied about Jenkins... But I have yet to see Horne put out a statement in which he admitted he'd had a brain fart, and had told a falsehood about Jenkins, and that Jenkins had never actually claimed to see a bullet hole high on Kennedy's forehead...And I've never seen a post or comment by Horne's supporters acknowledging he'd lied about Jenkins (or, at the very least, grossly misrepresented what he'd said). So my paranoia at this time seems justified...

As a former moderator, I can assure you that deciding what does or doesn't belong in the JFKA forum is a difficult task. At one point a certain someone assured us that every conspiracy for the last 50 (now 60) years pointed back to the Kennedy assassination, and filled the forum with thread after thread on the moon landing "hoax", the 9/11 "hoax" and so on. This individual got very angry and insulting when the moderators moved his threads to other sections of the forum. He even admitted that he thought his posts were so important that every member of the forum should be forced to look at them, even if they had almost nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination. So it's a slippery slope. IF people want to talk about our current political situation, there are places to do that. But people should be able to come here and see if there are any recent developments or thoughts about the Kennedy assassination, without having to sift through threads about Princess Diana's death, the Liberty Incident, Jack the Ripper, Hilary Clinton's sex life, etc. That was the original thought behind the forum. And we should respect those parameters. Now, the thought occurs that those other topics might gain more traffic if they were all combined into one, so the forum would have two main discussion groups: one purely on the assassination of President Kennedy and one on any and all other conspiracies. But that would be up to the administration team.

I'm sorry, Denise, but this is inaccurate. The gray smear Jenkins assumed to mark an entrance location was just above the ear on the side of the head. When Jenkins pointed out the hole to Law he was pointing out where there was an absence of scalp and skull when he first saw the body. This isn't what people want to believe, but this is what he said. As you have spent some time on my website you know I have spent an awful lot of time studying witness statements. And they are often erratic, if not fully inconsistent. Our memories are not consistent from year to year and decade to decade, or even from day to day. And JFK witnesses are probably even less consistent than most of us because of the influence of outside information. There are a number of witnesses who heard the last two shots bang bang but then made out they were equally spaced, after they'd been told it was one shooter with a bolt action rifle. Mary Woodward thought she heard a sound from west of the TSBD but then spent years apologizing for it and claiming she had bad hearing or whatever. So we know some people are swayed over time in that direction. But unrecognized by some is that people can be swayed in the other direction as well. Here from Law's book are the exact words... They are discussing the large head wound. Law: How big do you estimate the wound was? Jenkins: It would be difficult to estimate because a lot of the hair was still attached to the skull fragments--the skull was fragmented. But I would say that if you take your hand and you put the heel of your thumb behind your ear, that would cover the basic part of the wound with the open hole approximately in that area. Now, as demonstrated in the book and in the images posted here by Keven, the "basic part of the wound"--where fractured skull underlay the scalp and fell to the table when the scalp was reflected--was at the top of the back of the head--basically from the ear up on the right side. But the "open hole" is at the very top of the back of the head, essentially the crown. This is what Jenkins told me and others in a 2013 appearance at the Lancer conference, moreover. He said a lot of stuff at that conference that was at odds with with official story, and questioned the accuracy of the autopsy photos, etc. But I was mortified to discover that within hours of Jenkins saying there was NO HOLE on the back of the head between the ears when the body was put on the autopsy table, that certain people were citing his questioning the accuracy of the autopsy photos as evidence supporting their theory there was a hole on the back of the head between the ears. When I asked Jenkins about this in 2015, moreover--whether he realized many were taking his statements and using them to support stuff he had claimed was not true--he said, and Matt Douthit was there with me and he wrote this down the same way, something like "Whadda you gonna do? People will believe what they want to believe?" It is telling then that when Jenkins put out his book in 2018 that he singled out one theory in particular as one that people should not believe. At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018): (Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in th morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell performed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning." Now, despite many claims otherwise, I am a conspiracy theorist, and suspect all this hubbub about what Jenkins said and what I said Jenkins said was meant to conceal that Jenkins has specifically denounced the theory held dear by those who attacked me, and tried to (IMO) censor me. I mean, I just think it's odd that they get so upset about what I claim Jenkins said, while saying nothing about Doug Horne's appearance in JFK: What the Doctors Saw, in which he falsely claimed Jenkins had seen a bullet entrance high on JFK's forehead. I mean, let's pretend they are correct, and that I misrepresented Jenkins' statements--that misrepresentation reaches maybe a thousand people, half of whom don't care, and another half who probably think differently. So I am at best misinforming a couple of hundred people--the vast majority of whom will subsequently come to believe I was incorrect (Keep in mind that we're assuming I was incorrect.) So maybe ten or twenty people by the end of the year have been "fooled" by my misinformation. And yet Doug Horne told a blatant falsehood on international TV in a program that will eventually be seen by millions. And not just any millions--people with a passing interest in the case. So his misinformation will eventually "fool" hundreds of thousands of people, or more... And yet I am the source of the tempest in this teapot, and not Horne. Now, whenever I bring this up, my comments get buried under a mountain of vitriol and unrelated text. So I'm predicting this will happen again. Let's find out.

To be clear, I haven't been an active mod since John Simkin left the forum. I do not participate in decisions, and have little sway with those who make decisions. As far as Keven's claim I called James Jenkins a liar. It's not as simple as that. James Jenkins story changed but I suspect he's not even aware of it. I don't recall calling him a liar. And if I did I publicly apologize for that. As stated, I have met Jenkins and consider him a sincere person...doing his best. Now Keven was a lawyer--he surely must know that people's stories change all the time. And the fact Jenkins' story has changed was not something I drummed up...this was something David Lifton started complaining about over 20 years ago, and recorded in a long detailed memo. Now I spoke to Lifton about this and he claimed that several aspects of Jenkins' story were added in later, 10 years or more after he was first interviewed by Lifton. To wit, Jenkins made no mention of a bullet wound by the ear to the HSCA or Lifton...and only began claiming this after talking to Livingstone, if I recall. And I am fairly certain there were several other additions pointed out to me by Lifton, who said Jenkins was so malleable that he agreed with the depiction of the wound in the Ida Dox tracing of the BOH photo when first shown this by Lifton...in an interview filmed at Lifton's expense. Now, I like you, was surprised by this, and went back to view Lifton's interview of Jenkins in the Best Evidence research video...only to find that there is no interview of Jenkins in the video. And I wish Lifton was here to ask about this, but I can only assume Lifton felt Jenkins' statements weren't particularly important. By voicing agreement with the Dox drawing, after all, Jenkins had simply said what Lifton had already come to believe...that the autopsy photos were legit and reflective of the body after it was altered. In any event, I was there in the room in 2013 when Jenkins told a small audience the very top of the back of the head was missing but that the skull between the ears was fractured, and that this fractured skull fell to the table when Humes retracted the scalp, and left a much larger hole. And I was dismayed when years later, while promoting his book, he said the exact opposite--that the hole was on the far back of the skull and the top of the head was fractured and fell to the table. Now Keven doesn't want to believe this--that Jenkins changed his story. But here he is with Law pointing out the location of the hole... And here he is in 2018, while pointing out the location of the hole... It moved, right? And you don't have to trust me on this. Jenkins said the wound pointed out by his finger was 2 in wide by 3 1/2 in high. Well, look where his finger-tip is. Just above the lambdoid suture which forms the boundary between parietal and occipital. So the majority of this wound according to 2018 Jenkins was on the occipital bone, right? Well, if you have High Treason 2, your can check this for yourself. On page 228 he tells Livingstone the wound was "just above the occipital area." Now some people use the term "occipital area" as a broad brush which includes the parietal bone at the top of the back of the head. But no one uses the term to mean the bottom of the occipital bone--that is, no one would say something was above the occipital area that still overlay the occipital bone. So in 1990, when speaking to Livingstone, Jenkins specified that the wound was inches higher than he would later come to claim. It moved, right?

Oh I see. So you are not here to prop up Horne and Mantik. And yet you pretend the facts presented--that the photos PROVE the flap was being held up by Humes--is somehow refuted. by Mantik's pet theory...which I disproved forever ago...

What's with the games? Are you really claiming the flap at the top of the head in the BOH photo was NOT being held up by Humes? While speaking at the JFK Lancer conference in 2013, Dr. McClelland mentioned his viewing the photos for NOVA, and said the photos were"pretty much what we saw, with the exception of one thing." He then began discussing the back of the head photo--and his impression the scalp was pulled up for the photo, which concealed the full extent of the wound. But he went further--he said he knew there'd been a hole in this location because "the other photographs showed it." And this wasn't the last time he said as much... In 2015, Jacob Carter released Before History Dies, a collection of interviews of JFK assassination witnesses and researchers. Well, Dr. McClelland was one of those interviewed, and Carter pressed him on the back of the head photos--whether McClelland thought the autopsy photos were fake or not. As discussed in the last chapter, he told Carter: "Well, I think it's only that one picture. I discounted that picture because I thought someone was pulling the scalp over it, but someone told me they weren't, but it sure looked like they were. I think they were, so I was not mystified by saying it doesn't look like what I saw. The wounds that I saw when that flap is not covering them were just the kind of same wounds that I had seen in Trauma Room One. That picture where they are pulling the flap up was the only one out of several photos, which didn't jive with what I saw." Well, this was non-committal. Carter wanted to know whether or not McClelland thought the back of the head photo was designed to fool people. So he followed up and asked "Do you think they didn't want people to see the wound in the back of the head?" Now, here's the surprise... McClelland replied: "If they were trying to do that they wouldn't have shown any of the open wounds that weren't covered with the flap...it was appartent that he had a big hole on the back of his skull on the right side. I don't think they were trying to cover it up or they wouldn't have shown (the wound in) those other photos."

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?

Predictable. Robinson, who failed to get a look at the wound before it was torn apart, said he thought the top of the head photo was taken after the doctors removed the brain, or some such thing. This is the centerpiece of Horne's theory... But it's total nonsense. The star witness for the alteration zealots is Dr. Robert McClelland, and McClelland said repeatedly to those who would listen that the only photo that differed from what he remembered was the BOH photo. And you know what? He was right! I proved a decade to so ago that the top of the head in the BOH photo was a flap, and more recently that the skull defect when this flap was not held up by Humes' fingers, extended all the way to the top of the back of the head. Now, a wound in this location does NOT support that the bullet came from behind so there sure as heck would be no logical reason them to fake these photos. So part 2 of the equation is whether or not anyone showed the top of the head photo to the Parkland witnesses. And then I remembered that four of these witnesses, including McClelland, viewed the photos for NOVA and came out saying the photos confirmed their recollections. I then found a quote from McClelland where he specified that he thought the scalp was pulled up for the BOH photo because it made no sense to him that they would be trying to hide the hole on the back of the head because he could see it in the other photos. So, yeah, McClelland confirmed the accuracy of the top of the head photos. As apparently did many others. Groden, after all, spent years showing the back of the head photos to witnesses and claimed it must have been faked, as it didn't show what they remembered. But the top of the head photo? Well, he claimed it was authentic.

Does this show a wound on the top of the head? Yes or no?

If you read Law's book you will see that he discusses the wounds and then shows Jenkins the autopsy photos and discusses them some more after that. I was looking for the video from which I took the crappy screen grab and found instead a DVD sold by Lancer of a number of medical presentations, including Law's 2009 presentation in which he showed the second half of the interview--in which Jenkins discussed the autopsy photos. This verified Horne and Mantik's claim Jenkins had at that time claimed the wound was a round hole. So you should be happy. I admitted they were correct about something.

Actually, Horne wasn't incorrect in claiming Jenkins said the wound was somewhat larger than a silver dollar. Yep, that's right. While I have spent untold hours arguing that Doug Horne was wrong about this or that, I can say without any hesitation whatsoever that Jenkins did claim--prior to his book--that the wound was a round hole slightly bigger than a silver dollar. And that Horne was correct in saying so. First, of all, Horne's words came from Mantik's notes, and Mantik himself claimed Jenkins had said this. And, second of all, I just re-watched William Law's interview of Jenkins, which he played at the 2009 Lancer Conference. And Jenkins demonstrated the size of the hole with his fingers. And it was somewhat larger than a silver dollar.

Horne is wrong about a lot of things. He asserted in JFK: What the Doctors Saw that Jenkins saw a bullet hole high on the forehead. My first reaction was that this was a deliberate falsehood on his part, but now I'm thinking it was just a colossal brain fart. If he acknowledges his mistake, I will 1) be surprised, and 2) re-write some of the negative stuff I've written since viewing that film. Now, to Jenkins... From Chapter 19g: (Note that although Jenkins had lowered he location of the hole for his book, he still insisted it was not as large as made out by Lifton and Horne.) Jenkins spoke at the 2018 JFK Lancer conference, and said, to the horror of a at least one member of the audience, James Fetzer: "The wound that I saw was pretty much in agreement with the Parkland doctors." Well, this caused Fetzer to scream at Jenkins from the audience, and insist (because David Lifton and Doug Horne said so) that the wound at Bethesda was much bigger than the wound Jenkins saw at Parkland. Jenkins then offered that "when the scalp was reflected, bone adhering to the scalp fell away and fell into the cranium, which gave the wound an appearance of being larger than it really was." So, yes, Jenkins refused to support Lifton and Horne's theories holding that the head wound he first observed at Bethesda was many times the head wound observed at Parkland. And yes, this leads me to believe the wound depicted on the HSCA's drawings--which is far larger than the wound in the McClelland drawing--represented an attempt to depict the skull after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table, i.e., the skull as it is shown in the mystery photo.

No, that was Robinson who said that was the appearance at the end. Here is Horne on his blog working from Mantik's notes on Jenkins' 2013 appearance... JENKINS RECALLED THE APPROXIMATE SIZE OF THE LARGE WOUND IN THE POSTERIOR CRANIUM: Twice during his talks at JFK Lancer, Jenkins recalled that he did observe the large wound in the right rear of the head, and that its approximate size was "somewhat larger than a silver dollar."

There is an effort behind the scenes to push Mantik's new book as the final word on the medical evidence. If this is so, well, I am rightly seen as an obstacle.

I'm fairly certain the wound Jenkins depicted for the HSCA was the wound he saw after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. This is essentially what is shown in the mystery photo. He told researchers in 2013, after all, that the original hole was "somewhat larger than a silver dollar." The hole in the HSCA drawings is several times that of a silver dollar. In any event, he was most assuredly not depicting this.. .

And you can see the hole at the top of the back of the head in uncropped versions of the back wound photo...as at right below. The back of the head photo at left is undoubtedly deceptive, as a flap has been lifted up, which has obscured part of the hole on the top back of the head where Jenkins pointed. It should be noted as well that the only photo to sow confusion among the Parkland witnesses was the photo on the left. From Chapter 19h: Four of the Parkland doctors DID view the top of the head photos along with the other photos when visiting the archives for NOVA, in 1988, and all four of them, including Dr. McClelland, said the photos they saw corresponded to what they remembered. And all four pointed out a wound at the TOP of the back of the head--which was yessirree, consistent with the wound shown in the top of the head photos. So, yeah, we can assume that none of these doctors--not even McClelland--had a problem with the top of the head photo. And that's more than an assumption. In 2015, Jacob Carter released Before History Dies, a collection of interviews of JFK assassination witnesses and researchers. Well, Dr. McClelland was one of those interviewed, and Carter pressed him on the back of the head photos--whether McClelland thought the autopsy photos were fake or not. As discussed in the last chapter, he told Carter: "Well, I think it's only that one picture. I discounted that picture because I thought someone was pulling the scalp over it, but someone told me they weren't, but it sure looked like they were. I think they were, so I was not mystified by saying it doesn't look like what I saw. The wounds that I saw when that flap is not covering them were just the kind of same wounds that I had seen in Trauma Room One. That picture where they are pulling the flap up was the only one out of several photos, which didn't jive with what I saw." Well, this was non-committal. Carter wanted to know whether or not McClelland thought the back of the head photo was designed to fool people. So he followed up and asked "Do you think they didn't want people to see the wound in the back of the head?" Now, here's the surprise... McClelland replied: "If they were trying to do that they wouldn't have shown any of the open wounds that weren't covered with the flap...it was appartent that he had a big hole on the back of his skull on the right side. I don't think they were trying to cover it up or they wouldn't have shown (the wound in) those other photos." Well, there it is. McClelland thought the other photos showing the head wound, including no doubt the top of the head photo, were accurate presentations of Kennedy's injuries. And we can feel confident he wasn't the only Parkland witness to say so. While Robert Groden did show the back of the head photos to numerous Parkland witnesses, and come away claiming they all disputed the accuracy of these photos, he also claimed the top of the head photos WERE UNALTERED, and reflected what was seen at Parkland.

Uh...hello... The image posted by Keven comes from William Law's book, which is a collection of transcripts. Law included images from these interviews to demonstrate where people were pointing, etc. So the transcript is in Law's book.

Except... His post proved me correct. James Jenkins said...numerous times...that the open hole was at the top of the head...

Look at the second photo from Law's book that you posted... As Jenkins says "with the open hole in this area" he points to the top of his head. Here is Horne pointing out what he claims was the hole as first viewed by Humes. This is not where Jenkins pointed out an "open hole." And that's okay. Horne and Mantik claim Jenkins viewed the wound AFTER Humes performed the post-mortem surgery. .

I remember going back and reading the early statements from the NPIC people. They were not at all sure when they saw the film. Horne et all have insisted they viewed the film on different days and that the film was whisked off to be altered in between. But there is no evidence for this outside of speculation. Pure speculation. As you have acknowledged, moreover, Brugioni remembered tissue and blood exploding high into the air. Horne and his gang claim this was added by evil bad guys AFTER Brugioni viewed the film, correct? So their "star witness" actually suggests the exact opposite of what they claim he suggests. And this is not a surprise, really. If you go back and read the testimony of Tom Robinson you will see that he insisted the small wound he saw on the temple oe cheek was NOT a bullet hole. So, of course, the Mantik/Horne clan claim he said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead. Or what about Ed Reed? He claimed he took x-rays, and watched Humes begin the autopsy from the stands. And was then asked to leave. But Horne claims he saw Humes begin post-mortem surgery, was asked to leave, and was then brought back to take the x-rays. It's a con. And Mantik knows it because he always cites Horne's claims about Ed Reed rather than Reed's actual testimony, It's sad. And the only person who could have put a stop to this madness, IMO, has just passed on.

Let the casual reader take notice... Whenever I post anything which runs counter to the nonsensical theories of David Mantik or Doug Horne, Keven Hofeling BURIES my comments beneath a mountain of text and fails to address my comments. Keven was a long-time lawyer. This is a classic lawyer trick. If you can't argue the facts you attack the witness. In this case, his posts prove me correct over and over again, but he frames the arguments so that I am on trial...for simply disagreeing with nonsense. To be clear, James Jenkins told William Law, and Keven agrees he told William Law, there was a hole at the top of the head when he first saw the body. This was what he told me as well. Now, what's strange about this is that Mantik/Horne insist Jenkins failed to see the body prior to its being altered, and the wound at the top of the head seen by Jenkins was created by Humes in post-mortem surgery. So they SHOULD have no problem with me or anyone saying Jenkins saw a wound at the top of the head when he first saw the body. But here's the problem... Here is what Jenkins told me and Matt Douthit and the whole world in his book: At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018): (Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in the morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell perforrmed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning."