Sandy Larsen

On 6/9/2024 at 9:33 AM, W. Niederhut said:

I'm, frankly, astonished to learn that someone has, apparently, blocked me from receiving any personal messages on this forum.

@Kirk Gallaway

FWIW, I just sent a test message to W. and it worked. Apparently it is fixed.

@Ron Bulman

Ron, your PM box is full. It's probably over it's limit since your allotment was reduced. I just had that same problem and at first it appeared I couldn't delete messages. But I did find a way to delete them. Let me know if you need help.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

By "checked into this" do you mean you contacted Horne?

Nah, I just did some web searching.

Check this page out:

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/kennedy-casket-conspiracy/

Search the page for Robinson.

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The image you claim I've cherry-picked was posted by Keven as evidence I am a liar. It comes from Law's book.

All right, I made a little mistake. I said you got the video frame from Laws book, when in reality both you and Law got your frames from the video.

But it makes no difference. You cherry-picked from the video, choosing the frame where Jenkins is pointing nearest the top of the head. We know this because Law printed three frames from the video and Jenkins is pointing quite low in one of them.

After cherry-picking that frame from the video, you made it darker for some reason. Here is is:

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Your insistence that I've cherry-picked this image to make people think there was a wound on the top of the head demonstrates two things...

1. That Jenkins is pointing to the top of his head in this image.

Jenkins is pointing near the top of the head. In the normal, non-darkened version of the frame, you can see that his fingertip isn't quite at the top of his head.

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

2. I was correct in claiming Keven's posts supported there was a wound at the top of the head. (Now, before someone has an aneurism, let us agree that by top of the head I mean above the occipital bone.)

Without having the video, we have no sound to listen to and know what Jenkins is saying. So we don't know why he's pointing there.

What we do know is that there is no record of Jenkins ever saying there was a wound at the top of the head. Though we do have plenty of transcripts and videos where he said there was a gaping wound on the back of the head, and that it is similar to the wound shown in McClelland's drawing. This is true both now (we know from his 2018 book) and long ago (we know from a 1991 video).

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, let's be clear. Jenkins' placement of the wound varied slightly over the years, which is not surprising, actually. But he was consistent over the years in claiming the wound as first observed was above the occipital area, and usually to the side as well. Here he is in 2002, pointing out the location of the big wound. 

Yes, that is consistently where Jenkins placed the gaping wound... today and forty years ago!

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, you keep going back and citing Jenkins' book... And this further verifies my claims. I have been claiming for years that Jenkins' recollections changed while working on the book, and your reliance upon it supports this....

I don't rely on Jenkins' 2018 book. I used it to show that he said the same thing in 2018 as he did in 1991.

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Because the wound demonstrated above is not in the same location as the wound location depicted below...on an image taken from an interview put together to promote the book. 

Agreed?

 

The guy in the red shirt needs to move his finger a little to the right.

6 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Pat,

I don't understand your complaint against Horne. What he wrote in 2010 seems to be consistent with Robinson's HSCA testimony that you posted. Please explain what Horne did wrong, as you see it.

6 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

You’re kidding right? Robinson was asked about things he’d heard or read about the assassination and autopsy that struck him as incorrect. Horne left out the question and presented Robinson’s answer as his actual recollections.

Of course I'm not kidding.

I'm not at all familiar with any Robinson statements regarding the body or autopsy being moved around. So when I read that Pat had a problem with what Horne wrote, I focused on what Horne wrote compared to what Robinson had said in his testimony. They looked consistent to me, though I wondered how Horne could conclude what he did from what Robinson said, given how cryptic it is. I figured Horne must know something else.

But yeah, after re-reading the HSCA question, I see what the problem is.

I checked further into this and discovered that Horne is reportedly suspicious of those statements of Robinson's recorded in the transcript... because parentheses and ellipses aren't things you see in transcripts. So he reportedly set about to get the original audio recording of the HSCA interview to see what Robinson actually said. But couldn't get it.

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

In presenting a new timeline in 2010 he wrote "Tom Robinson witnesses the President's body removed from the morgue and is told that the autopsy is "being moved" to another location temporarily. His agitation about this was recalled to the HSCA staff 14 years later, in 1977, when he told them that "the body was taken" and that "the body never came."  

Now I didn't remember Robinson's claiming as much so I went back and read his HSCA testimony, and found this...

 

 

So Horne had cherry-picked Robinson's words--what he'd claimed was incorrect--and presented them as Robinson's recollections.

Pat,

I don't understand your complaint against Horne. What he wrote in 2010 seems to be consistent with Robinson's HSCA testimony that you posted.

Please explain what Horne did wrong, as you see it.

17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

On page 93 of In the Eye of History, Jenkins shows Law the size of the hole in the skull as first observed (as opposed to the size of the hole after the scalp was peeled back and shattered skull fell to the table--which we can only assume is what he was showing in the HSCA drawing.)

Dear readers,

(And Pat... if he will listen to reason. But he probably won't.)

What Pat is saying here is that Jenkins did indeed point to a hole in the rear of the head. Except that the hole only became present when the scalp was reflected (peeled back) and fragmented bone from the back of the skull fell to the table.

Yet again Pat is wrong. The truth is that both the scalp and skull fragments were missing from the back of the head, according to Jenkins. But that it was difficult to tell the extent of the wound till after the scalp was reflected.

Here are Jenkins' exact words from his 2018 book:

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.

Pat had to make up the story about the skull fragments falling to the table, because otherwise he'd be admitting that Jenkins placed the gaping wound on the back of the head.

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That's a cute trick that you did... cherry pick a frame from a video where Jenkins is pointing nearest the top of his head.

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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...

Yes, you took that video frame from Law's book. So Law is the one who picked it.

BUT...

Law printed THREE related frames of the video for his book. And YOU cherry-picked the one that shows Jenkins pointing closest to the top of his head!

Regardless, this video frame without any sound and no transcript is NOT evidence of any kind the Jenkins placed the wound at the top of the head. As I have shown, Jenkins ALWAYS said the gaping wound was at the back of the head. And you have nothing to show otherwise.

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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. 

Wow... just wow! I post the Jenkins frame, pointing out that you had cherry picked it to suit your needs... and you say therefore I have conceded your point! You have a lot of nerve to make such a ridiculous claim! (I'd penalize you for lying again, if I could! Though, of course, I'd give you a chance to correct it first. Like I did last time.)

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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...

BTW Pat, Jenkins didn't change the size of the wound.

The McClelland-sized wound is what he saw when the head was first unwrapped. Later the morticians put the head back together again, used that rubber dam in the back to stop fluid leakage, and stretched the scalp as much as they could to cover the rubber dam. That left a remaining hole that Jenkins said was the size of a silver dollar.

I can easily prove that what I'm saying is true. Both the large and the small hole description are in that 1991 Livingstone video which I partially transcribed. And both are in his 2018 book.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

That's a cute trick that you did... cherry pick a frame from a video where Jenkins is pointing nearest the top of his head.

Now let me listen to the video so I can hear what Jenkins is actually saying. And so I can see where else he points.

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

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.

First, the issue I raise has nothing to do with Horne. So quit deflecting over to him.

So, you say that Jenkins became a back-of-the-head man only recently. Well, if that is true, then how do you explain the fact that he was a back-of-the-head man a long time ago too... and in fact has always been a back-of-the-head man?

Here's a drawing Jenkins did for the HSCA:

Back of the head.

Later, Jenkins told David Lifton, "I would say that parietal and occipital section on the right side of the head--it was a large gaping area...It had just been crushed, and kind of blown apart, toward the rear."

When Lifton told Jenkins that photographs showed that the back of the head was essentially intact, except for a small bullet entry wound at the top, he responded, "That's not possible, That is totally--you know, there's no possible way. Okay? It's not possible."

In 1991 Jenkins told Livingstone, "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."

So even back in 1991, Jenkins was saying that the wound he saw was like the one in Dr. McClelland's drawing.

Just as I said, James Jenkins has ALWAYS been a back-of-the-head guy. Except, apparently, when he is talking to you.

Did you see that? I just proved once again that James Jenkins placed the gaping wound on the back of the head, not the top. The proof is very easy to do.

Pat's claim is a demonstrable falsehood. It is against forum rules to post demonstrable falsehoods... unless you're a prominent researcher. A moderator gets punished if the dare penalize a prominent researcher.

This is all my opinion.

Pat Speer has said repeatedly that James Jenkins placed the gaping head wound on the top of the head, not on the back like most witnesses did. And he has said repeatedly that Jenkins actually told this to him personally. In person, I believe.

I recalled this upon reading the following comment that Pat posted recently:

On 6/7/2024 at 11:57 AM, Pat Speer said:

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?"

Pat and his followers are the only people on earth who know and believe this.

Everybody else knows that Jenkins has always placed the wound on the back of the head. So I find it very odd that the only person in the whole world Jenkins tells otherwise is Pat.

I decided to buy James Jenkins' 2018 book At the Cold Shoulder of History because Pat likes to get his James Jenkins information from it. I wanted to see Jenkins' words for myself. The message that he tells everybody... except apparently for Pat Spear.

I wasn't surprised what I discovered.

There are numerous things I could quote from the book to make my case. But I  think that these two things say it well:

On page 121 of his Kindle book Jenkins writes:

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.

On page 129 he writes:

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.

That's the back of the head, folks.

On 6/7/2024 at 11:42 AM, Tom Gram said:

There is currently zero physical evidence that the [Zapruder] film was altered...

But there is an overwhelming amount of corroborating circumstantial evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. That it is corroborating makes it more valuable than a single piece of physical evidence.

Nearly every witness (approximately 40 of them) said they saw the gaping wound on the back of the head. Even if every one of them was wrong (which is what anti-alterationists believe), what are the odds that all 40 would agree on a wound location? Close to zero!

That would be like like throwing, say, 45 coins and having 40 of them come up heads.

And yet the witnesses DID agree on a location! The back of the head!

How is that possible? The only possible way 40 witnesses could agree on the same location is if they were all right.

Having said that, I will note that Tom is wrong in what I quoted of him above. There actually IS physical evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. The logarithmic scan of the film reveals an artificially darkened patch on the back of JFK's head. Which is quite valid proof that the film was altered. Though the circumstantial proof I described above is actually stronger.

24 minutes ago, Martin Nee said:

I am a very new member of this forum and I’m guessing younger than most here. The Ed forum threads often came up in my searches for more information on specific jfk related topics and I found the older ones very insightful. 
I decided to join as I though participating in the forum would give me the opportunity to talk directly to many of the authors and researchers who’s work I have enjoyed and to people who have studied this case since before I was born. 
Unfortunately while I have gotten a lot of positives from browsing this forum I think it suffers from the same issues a lot of boards and subreddits do where there is less of a focus on the “education” part and things tend to devolve into bickering over closely held beliefs and theories with a bit too much zealotry.

As a newbie I’d much rather there was more of a data over dogma approach and it does concern me that threads containing valuable insight discussions and info can be buried under long texts of arguments or wiped entirely. For example if I make a post asking about identifying a person in a photo with Oswald, it’s a little disappointing to see it become a thread largely dominated about people arguing wether Oswald was multiple people and which one was in the photo with the unidentified person. 
 

There is a lot of good and informative work done on this forum both in the past and presently. I would hope there is a way for it to be saved and an attempt made to build upon it for the sake of continued scholarship rather than have it live and die on an internet forum thread buried under pages of people accusing each other of wrongdoing and hurling insults. 

I hope to use this forum to

- gain valuable information it is hard to learn elsewhere 

- acquire links to sources that might not be readily available 

- see updates and informed discussion between authors and researchers 

- see challenges to orthodoxy and long held assumptions not met with instant suppression. The way to test a theory is to attempt to falsify it. 

That’s my two cents anyway
 

Martin,

Stick with it.

What you are seeing right now is something that almost never happens.

A couple weeks ago a fairly new member opened a thread and in it exposed a lie being made by a prominent researcher. Actually the prominent researcher had been lying about it for a long time, possibly decades.

It is against forum rules to post "demonstrable falsehoods." As a moderator, I gave the researcher an opportunity to correct the lie. He refused. I suggest that he simple qualify his falsehood with something like, "It is my belief that..." which would make his statement true. He refused again, and so I penalized him with a few day's suspension from posting.

Next thing I know, a number of his followers objected and turned against me, two of whom I had to penalize as well. (Minor penalties.) Even a co-moderator turned against me and he posted crazy stuff about me. (He claimed I was under the control of the member who brought the charge against the prominent researcher.) What he said was unfounded, uncalled for, and public! So I penalized him too!

What I've learned from this is that forum rules are only for average forum members, not prominent ones. I have now lost my moderator status.

Now here I am, having to defend myself from the charges of the worst rules-violators who are exacting revenge on me for having penalized them in the past.

But, as I said, this will blow over and things will be fine again.

Good luck to you.

54 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Unless the offensive comments were removed before I got there, neither Greg nor Jean Paul appears to have done anything worthy of suspension.

Jean Paul's remarks were disrespectful to the moderator. It appears that somebody has deleted that post, so I can't defend myself on it.

In Greg Doudna's case, he repeatedly lied. Here is his post with my comments in red:

I suppose Pat Speer, probably one of the top ten most productive researchers in America challenging the Warren Commission's version of the JFK assassination of long-time standing, won't be talking much more on this forum about any tangential shot interpretation.

Last night Sandy deleted him from this forum. 

That's a lie. I merely suspended his posting privileges for a few days.

For holding views which the same moderator who deleted him determined on his sole sayso had been "shown wrong" and therefore could not permissably continue to be be expressed.

That's a lie. Hard evidence showed that Pat had distorted the evidence in a way as to make it a appear the James Jenkins said something that he didn't say... that the wound was at the top of the head. Both Keven and I showed Pat that Jenkins never said that, and in fact said the wound was on the back of the head. I gave Pat the opportunity to rephrase what he said so as to make it factual. But Pat refused.

And that was just one of Pat's lies. The other of his lies was this: Pat claimed that Keven Hofeling AGREED that Jenkins placed the hole on top of the head. Which of course is a ridiculous notion.

In some old days I realized early on that in groups or movements which challenge fundamental status quos, there are ways and means by which those status quos can neutralize anyone who is effective.

Pat Speer has been effective.

Someone came on this forum with a vendetta and neutralized him. 

Not content to show Pat wrong through posted or published argument, the traditional manner of doing things.

That's a lie. Keven Hofeling posted voluminous arguments proving his case.

But crush him, blacken his name, silence him from saying what he thinks. 

That's a lie. Neither Keven nor I did anything to try to silence Pat from saying what he thinks. As a matter of fact, I encouraged Pat to state that "he thinks" that Jenkins placed the wound on the top of the head. Because that would have been the truth and there would be no penalty. But Pat refused.

The newcomer had no known previous history with the JFK assassination topic.

Shows up out of nowhere.

Offers no known original argument or analysis of his own.

That's a lie. Keven effectively and convincingly argued that what Pat was saying was a lie. He left no doubt on that.

Has published nothing on the JFK assassination.

Just advocacy of a certain existing interpretation...

That's a lie. Keven provided hard evidence for which no interpretation could be or need be made.

...used as a club and to bludgeon in the service of the only apparent discernible objective: a massive sustained attack on targeted Pat Speer with no letup or pause, over and over and over and over, until victory.

Repetition of talking points and memes and personal attacks.

Just took him out. (Victory.)

Those are the facts.

Those are several lies.

51 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

suspended everyone who disagreed or protested

Not everyone.  But then, they let me get away with murder in this joint.

Tom, of course, is wrong regarding why I penalized those two members. I had good cause to penalize both.

The reason you weren't penalized Cliff is because you didn't break any rules. Quite the contrary, you made some useful observations.

38 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Well said Matt.  The main focus of the forum for me personally is that the debate focuses on a search for the Truth, or what may ever still be attainable of that.   

Well, if Pat Speer states a lie... then that's okay.

That's what I now know well.

2 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

The burden of proof is not on me.

When you make accusations, then yes, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise your words are empty.

2 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

You and Keven made the accusations. Are the Jenkins quotes I posted from Pat’s website accurate quotes from High Treason 2 and that 1991 interview? If they are, it proves that Jenkins did place the wound on the back side of the top of the head, multiple times. Are you now accusing Pat of falsifying or misrepresenting direct quotes? If so, prove it. 

Keven did prove it. You just didn't read the proof.

2 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?

It doesn't matter one bit where the back of the head ends and the top begins.

In fact, is doesn't even matter whether the hole was on the back, on the top, or nowhere at all. Because that is not what is being challenged.

What is being challenged is WHERE JAMES JENKINS PLACED THE HOLE. And the truth is that he placed it on the back. Just like almost every other witness did.

The very reason Mark Knight and I disagree on this matter is that he cannot see the distinction between "where the hole was" and "where did Jenkins say the hole was." Maybe you can't either.

2 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

How exactly, in your subjective interpretation, do Jenkins’ inconsistent ambiguous statements and gestures 30 years after the fact not suggest a wound at  the back of the top of the head? 

Jenkins statements are NOT inconsistent or ambiguous. I watched the video from which Pat's stills came from and I transcribed the portions where Jenkins spoke about the large hole on the head. Naturally Pat didn't include these on his website.

There are actually two portions. In the first one, Jenkins describes the hole in the scalp that was left after the mortician had reconstructed the head. He said that the hole in the scalp was about the size of a silver dollar and it was located on the back of the head.

In the other portion of the video, he goes back to the time when he first saw the wounds. He said that they removed the towels and he saw a wound the size of a fist. He said that it looked close to what the famous McClelland drawing shows. And that, of course, is with a very large wound on the back of the head.

Speaking of drawings... have you even bothered to look at the drawing of the wound made by James Jenkins? Well the wound's clearly on the back there as well.

Oh, the wound IS so large that it does extend up high near the top. But to thereby claim that the wound was at the top would still be a lie... a lie by omission. (Look it up.) An honest person would say it was on the back of the head, extending to the top. Something like that.

2 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Call it whatever you want, but the fact is that you openly supported Keven flagrantly violating forum rules,

You're alleging that Keven broke the rules. Prove it!

Why didn't you report these alleged rules earlier? Why did nobody report them?

Oh I know why... <light bulb!>  it's because he didn't break the rules!

33 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I pointed out how Kevin was repeatedly breaking the rules by calling Pat a fraudulent liar...

I don't believe that Keven ever called Pat a "fraudulent liar." Prove your allegation.

And BTW, I recall once asking Keven to be careful not to use the word "liar" because doing so was against forum rules.

33 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

...and Sandy defended it by saying it was fine because Pat actually lied.

No, I never said that.

What I said is that if a member posts a demonstrable falsehood, but refuses to correct it upon being notified, that that could be called a lie. Because that in fact would be a lie.

33 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

It was a difference of opinion on ambiguous evidence and ultimately boiled down to semantic BS over what constitutes the back vs. the top of the head.

No, it wasn't an opinion. It was a lie. James Jenkins NEVER said the hole was on top of the head. He ALWAYS said it was on the back of the head.

You have used Pat Speer as a source to prove that Pat Speer didn't lie.

33 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Then Jean Paul became a bootlicker. Personal insults are another forum rule violation. 

Well kettle, meet pot. As you continue to misrepresent what both Keven and I have said and done.

52 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

1. You may be incorrect or biased.

Yes, moderators can always make the wrong call. So should we quit moderating to prevent that?

52 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

2. Other participants earnestly believe in their views as well. It is not necessary to speak in a disparaging manner about other earnestly held views. 

I merely made a relevant observation.

52 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You are likely a very smart guy, but perhaps you are miscast as moderator.

A lot of people here think I'm a good moderator.

11 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

You're arguing semantics, Sandy. If you say someone lied, you ARE calling him a liar. Check the dictionary. A liar is one who lies. Therefore you DID call Pat Speer a liar when you said he lied, according to the definition of the word on the English language.

liar

46 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

I think Sandy has been doing an outstanding job. I thought being a commissioner in fantasy football league was difficult but this place takes the cake.

Thank you Paul.

Fact is, while it is true I can handle Pat's lies and the bogus claims of people like Tom Gram... I am discovering that certain people are above the law on the forum.

The forum rule needs to be rewritten as:

No member, with the exception of Pat Speer, shall use this board to post any comment or material which is demonstrably false.

53 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

This is supposedly a Jenkins quote from High Treason 2. I do not have the book: 

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 definition of “occipital” is:

“of or relating to the back part of the head or skull or to the occipital bone.” 

53 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

So a literal reading of Jenkins’ statement places the absence and scalp and bone “above the back of the head”. 

Nonsense.

James Jenkins ALWAYS said that the wound was on the back of the head. He NEVER said it was on the top of the head. Never!

When David Lifton told Jenkins that the autopsy photos showed an intact scalp on the back of the head, Jenkins replied, "That's not possible, That is totally--you know, there's no possible way. Okay? It's not possible." ( Best Evidence , p. 617)

Following is what Dr. Aguilar documented on his head-wound witness list. I've highlighted the pertinent parts:

11) JAMES CURTIS JENKINS: the other laboratory technologist who worked with the autopsy team on JFK, Jenkins was at that time in a Ph.D. program in pathology. (High Treason II , p. 226) The HSCA's Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy reported that Jenkins "said he saw a head wound in the "...middle temporal region back to the occipital." (HSCA interview with Curtis Jenkins, Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy, 8-29-77. JFK Collection, RG 233, Document #002193, p.4) He told author, David Lifton, "I would say that parietal and occipital section on the right side of the head--it was a large gaping area...It had just been crushed, and kind of blown apart, toward the rear." (Lifton, Best Evidence ", p. 616) When Lifton told Jenkins that photographs showed that the back of the head was essentially intact, except for a small bullet entry wound at the top, he responded, "That's not possible, That is totally--you know, there's no possible way. Okay? It's not possible." ( Best Evidence , p. 617) Jenkins told Livingstone, "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." ( High Treason II , p. 228). Jenkins' views, whether as given by the HSCA, Livingstone, or Lifton, are noteworthy by their consistency, and as Jenkins was in a Ph.D. pathology program, his anatomic specificity is of value.

53 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I do not have this interview, but Pat’s website says this: 

While speaking at a 1991 video-taped conference in Dallas, Harrison Livingstone handed Jenkins a mannequin head marked on the low back of the head and said "This area, when the head came in, you said was opened up." Jenkins responded "Yes, the tissue was attached and the scalp was attached to bone fragments in all of this area." Note that Jenkins insisted that scalp was attached to the bone in "this area," and that there was thereby no blow-out wound in "this area." "This area," as claimed by Jenkins, moreover, is shown below. It is the back of the head, precisely where most conspiracy theorists assume there was a blow-out wound.

Pat has a screen cap of Jenkins pointing to the back of a rubber skull. He continues: 

Jenkins was then asked to show where the wound was when he first saw the body. He put his hand on the top right side of his head, above his ear, and said "If I place the palm of my hand a little superior and anterior to the ear, it would encompass the circle of fingers." (This is shown at left below.) He then moved his hand back three inches or so and curled up his fingers to approximate the size of the "silver dollar or half-dollar" sized wound he said remained after reconstruction, and said "It was in approximately in this area, is where the final hole was--after everything had been drawn back and the body had been prepared for burial."  (This is shown at right below.)

Now, should that be too hard to make out, a GIF of this sequence of the interview was put online by a daft person, who insisted I was somehow misrepresenting what Jenkins had told Livingstone. So here it is... Note how Jenkins' hand drops dramatically at the end when showing where the hole was at the end of the autopsy. It is inches below where he first places it, exactly as I've claimed.

The first (left) image is of Jenkins holding his hand entirely above the right ear, with the circle of fingers right behind it i.e. on the back part of the TOP of the head. 

Is there some ambiguity? Sure, but that’s multiple statements from Jenkins that a reasonable person might interpret as him placing the wound on the back part of the TOP of the head. 

Are you saying that unless someone literally says the word “top”, it doesn’t matter that their statements and gestures suggest a wound ABOVE the occipital area of the head? Even Kevin Hofeling admitted this: 

It's true that James Jenkins places the blow out wound slightly higher than the occiput on the back of the head, but in recent years this has evolved into Speer saying that the large gaping head wound was on the top and not the back of JFK's head.

The literal definition of occiput is: 

The back of the head or skull.

Tom, you are a perfect example of a researcher who has been duped by Pat Speer lies.

Had you read Keven Hofeling's post, you would now understand that Pat cherry-picked and mischaracterized what James Jenkins said, to make it look like Jenkins placed the wound on top of the head, when in fact he didn't.

The reason I penalized Pat Speer was to try and prevent other researcher from being duped like you've been.

53 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Kevin egregiously broke forum rules over and over in his crusade to censor Pat ...

Keven broke no rules.

53 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

...yet Sandy justified it by breaking the rules himself and openly calling Pat a liar...

That is absolutely not true. I have never called Pat or any other member a liar. If I have, prove it!

What I did do was say that Pat lied about two things. And what I said is true... Pat did lie about those two things, and I penalized him because he wouldn't correct it.

18 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Matt [Allison] would be a good candidate [for moderator] imho.

I think that Matt would make a great addition to the admin team!

As Mark Knight said above, he was inclined to retire when I came on as admin. But he promised to stay on as long as I needed him, for which I will be eternally grateful.

Well, I am to the point where I can run things without Mark's mentoring (though I don't know if James Gordon will allow me to continue). If we were to bring Matt or somebody else on, Mark could get his wish and retire.

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I discussed the root of the current problem in the following post. This was back in January, when Sandy had barely begun dishing out punishments to members who disagreed with him:

I have never punished a person for disagreeing with me. Never!

What I began doing in January was penalizing members when they mocked other members for their beliefs. Something that Jeremy Bojczuk was in the habit of doing. Mocking other members is against forum rules.

Forum decorum has greatly improved since I began cracking down on egregious rules violators. Unfortunately for me, the rules violators are now coming back and exacting their revenge on me.