Sandy Larsen

I SHOULD call out every LNer (and CTer) who habitually lie about evidence. That is what I thought we were doing. But now it's beginning to look like a more pervasive problem.

Oh my, this is much worse than I had imagined. Even Pat's stories of speaking with James Jenkins are filled with lies. And you are right, Pat makes Jenkins out as being a liar... one whose story changes, supposedly being influenced by CTers. I'm beginning to think that Cliff Varnell may be right, that Pat is delusional. If he is, I'm thinking that the best course of action might be to post a sticky disclaimer at the top of the forum warning readers that it has been demonstrated that Pat Speer is probably delusional and that anything he says may be false. A disclaimer not to protect the forum, but rather to protect researchers and truth seekers from false information. Though I do wonder if posting this might create a libel situation for the forum or me. Thanks for all the time and effort you put into this, Keven.

The post hasn't been deleted, Ron. It is still there. And in fact I just responded to it myself. Actually, the length of the penalty for 40 points is eight days.

I haven't deleted ANY posts! All of Mark Knight's posts are to be found on the thread titled "WHY PAT SPEER OWES PUBLIC APOLOGIES TO FORMER BETHESDA AUTOPSY TECH JAMES JENKINS AND TO THE JFKA RESEARCH COMMUNITY AT LARGE."

What makes you say I "deleted" Pat from the forum? I did no such thing. Rather, I penalized him. Pat insisted that James Jenkins placed the large hole on the top of the head. That is not true. As any honest person can see by reading Jenkins' statements, he placed the large hole on the back of the head. I might penalize you, Greg, for making the above false statement. OMG, cut the drama would ya? Keven didn't "bludgeon" Pat for holding interpretations different from his own. He demonstrated that Pat intentionally lied by saying Jenkins said something that in fact he didn't.

Pat's suspension is for eight days. Had Pat inserted the phrase "I believe," or something similar, into his statements, he would not have been penalized.

Greg, It is a lie by omission to state that Jenkins said the wound was at the top of the head. Lying by omission is a well known means of deception. The wound was primarily on the back of the head according to Jenkins. BTW, it is against forum rules to call someone a liar. However, if it is proven that member told a lie, you can say that he told a lie.

Greg, First off, if you began your sentence with "I believe," then you could say anything without breaking the "demonstrable falsehood" rule. Because you would be stating an opinion. Second, if you say anything in good faith, that would not be a violation of the rule. In that case, if another member pointed out that what you are said is a falsehood, and proved it to be a falsehood, then you would be in violation of the rule only if you refused to correct it, or edit it to say that it is you opinion or belief. Having said that, I will now answer your specific question, which is: Of course that would not be violating the rule. Because what you said would be true. I'm pretty sure that Jenkins said the large wound extended into the crown of the head. That is the impression I got from listening to what he said. But it was mostly in the back. A little bit, yes. From all the descriptions I've read from all the witnesses, I get the impression that they saw a various sized wound at somewhat various locations because of the ragged edges of the scalp. Some saw the wound with the ragged edges more closed up, and others saw it with the ragged edges more opened up. Thus making the hole look smaller or larger, respectively. Yes.

Well so do I. I will have to consult with a psychologist friend on this possible diagnosis.

Calling someone out for lying is not ad hominem. Posting demonstrable falsehoods is against forum rules. There is a good reason for imposing this rule. Good-natured condescension will not prevent members from believing/learning Pat's lies. I have a better idea... why not let members call out Pat (or anybody else) when they post something in a way that presents it as being factual when in fact it is not? That way the errant member can qualify his statement with something like "I believe that..." This is, in fact, the way it has always been on the forum. Explain why it is we should make an exception for Pat. We should have a learned from yesterday's court conviction that nobody is above the law. Make no mistake about it... if it were just some Joe Blow we were talking about here, nobody would have come to his defense. It is only because of Pat's status in the community that several have come to his defense. Well in my opinion, these people are all bad-habit enablers.

This has become increasingly important to me because it is looking more and more like Pat has knowingly used deceitful techniques to provide support for his theories. That is my opinion, of course. But what other conclusion can I come to when I show a person all the evidence, and they pretend like none of it exists? The only things they accept are ambiguous things that can be "interpreted" to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Mark, Please read my posts on this thread: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30476-moderators-discussion-of-pat-speers-claim-that-james-jenkins-placed-the-wound-at-the-top-of-the-head/

Mark, If the only thing a person were to read about James Jenkins' placement of the large head wound was the description he gave of scalp being attached to bone fragments, then I would agree that it leaves the matter of the wound location up to interpretation. Pat's interpretation of that description is that the wound was at the top of the head. If that was all there is to it, I would have no problem at all for Pat to say that he believes Jenkins is placing the wound at the top of the head. The problem is, Pat does not say that. Rather, he states it as fact that Jenkins placed the wound at the top of the head. But it is worse for Pat than just that. The fact is that James Jenkins has ALWAYS placed the large wound at the back of the head. Not the top. We have several instances of that, and so there can be no question. We have shown this to Pat and yet he continues to insist that Jenkins placed the wound on the top of the head. The fact is, Jenkins has NEVER said the wound was on the top of the head. I asked Pat to give me one ... just one ... example of Jenkins saying the wound was on the top of the head. And he couldn't produce a thing! Now, if Pat wants to believe that James Jenkins said that the wound was on the top of the head, that's his business. But I'll be damned if he thinks he can state that as a fact on this forum. It is against forum rules to post anything that is demonstrably false and I have every intention of enforcing that rule. So if Pat wants to say that Jenkins placed the wound on the top of the head, he is going to have to stipulate that that is his interpretation or belief. Either that or be penalized.

This thread is for forum moderator posts only. It is being made public for transparency proposes. If you wish to make a correction or any other such thing, please do so by PM to the three moderators, Mark Knight, Sandy Larsen, and Ron Bulman. Thank you.

What I said is correct. James Jenkins was describing the mortician-reconstructed wound when he described it as being the size of a silver dollar. I transcribed it from the first video below. Here is what he said: "After the plaster was placed by the mortician ... in the head, it was remolded... there was an area in the back of the head that had -- it was actually a hole in the back of the head that was approximately the size of the silver dollar." Later, he went back chronologically and described the original wound when they first took the towels off: "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." Horne is wrong about this.

How can you be so certain? Did Jenkins ever say that the scalp was peeled back before his seeing the large wound on the back of the head? No, he didn't say the original hole was the size of a silver dollar. He said that that was the size of the hole after the morticians were finished reassembling the skull and scalp. He was talking about the hole that the morticians said they closed up with and orange-sized rubber dam. That was the original hole before the skull was reconstructed.

Oh really? So you are in favor of Pat's lying? Greg, If you had a genuine interest in this topic and the serious nature of it, you would have read the whole thread and you would know that: It has been established that Pat has been and continues to lie about what James Jenkins said regarding the location of the gaping wound on JFK's head. I as administrator have not forbidden Pat from stating his opinions and interpretations. There is no evidence that Keven is attempting to get Pat banned. The only thing I want is for Pat to discontinue stating things as if they are facts when in reality they are not. I've said multiple times now that Pat is free to say these things, but he must treat them as being his opinions or interpretations. (Though he would be intellectually dishonest in doing so.)

Problem is, Joe, Pat cherry-picked a frame from his interview where his fingers were nearest the top of his head. Here are other frames from the interview: (ignore the top photo) Also, look at the drawing James Jenkins did for the HSCA:

Okay, so you can't produce a single transcript or video where James Jenkins says the wound is on the top of the head. But you mention a transcript in William Law's book. Well here it is, along with the frame (bottom image) from the video where he said it: This is a photocopy from his book. Here is the full quote, also from the book: "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." The "heel of your thumb" is the fleshy part between the thumb and the palm. If you place that behind your right ear, that is where the wound was according to Jenkins. That, Pat, is not the top of the head. That is the back of the head.

Are you asking me what I think Pat's objective is for lying? It is my opinion that -- upon looking at the evidence -- you are not such a fool as to believe there is any interpretation to have. Jenkins made it clear there was a large hole on the back of the head. So I therefore believe you were merely bootlicking. I, of course, could be wrong about that.

Keven has presented multiple instances of James Jenkins saying there was a large hole on the back of JFK's head. Show me one transcript or one video where James Jenkins said that the hole was on the top of the head.

I see his fingers point to the top of his head. I don't hear the words, "the hole was here" coming out of his mouth.

Pat, You have posted TWO lies in this thread, repeated multiple times, as quoted here: This sentence has one lie: This sentence has two lies: This sentence has two lies: This sentence has one lie: If I penalize you for both these lies, you will be issued 20 penalty points. In addition, you will receive another 20 points because another member (Keven) has asked you to remove these forum violations. The following is a table showing how many days of posting privileges a member loses based on their accumulated penalty points: 10 Points = 1 day 20 Points = 2 days 30 Points = 4 days 40 Points = 8 days Please remove these lies ASAP to save yourself from being penalized. Note that, should you restate what you've said in a way that indicates they are your interpretation or your opinion, doing so would effectively change your lies to factual statements, given that you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe... regardless of how intellectually dishonest it may be.

You shouldn't call someone a liar. But you can say someone lied about something specific if it has been proven they lied. It looks to me like Keven is on a crusade to get Pat to quit lying. But your sarcastic "alterationist echo chamber" comment probably explains why you are willing to put up with Pat Speer lies regarding the medical evidence. Lying is a bad thing.

Pat, The topic of this thread is that you are telling a lie about what James Jenkins said. What happens, contrary to what you are saying (which I quote above), is that Keven presents his case that you are lying, and rather than defend yourself, you change the topic to James Jenkins supposedly disagreeing with Horne's theory of pre-autopsy illicit surgery to the head. Keven rightly ignores your off-topic post, after which you use that against him, saying it is some kind of lawyerly trick. It is not a lawyerly trick. Please stick to the topic of this thread. If you wish to discuss James Jenkins' opinion of Horne's illicit head surgery theory, please do so on a separate thread.