Sandy Larsen

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: 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 This closely matches the wound that I saw after the scalp was retracted from the skull.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, if Pat Speer states a lie... then that's okay. That's what I now know well.

When you make accusations, then yes, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise your words are empty. Keven did prove it. You just didn't read the proof. 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. 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. 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!

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

Yes, moderators can always make the wrong call. So should we quit moderating to prevent that? I merely made a relevant observation. A lot of people here think I'm a good moderator.

liar (ˈlaɪə) n a person who has lied or lies repeatedly Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014 I made bold the definition I am using. But if you want us to say that anybody who has lied is a liar, then we are ALL liars! Okay, so according to you we are all liars. Explain to me why the word "liar" should be banned. We're all liars. ----------------------------- Obviously the word "liar" should be banned because it makes it sound like a person lies a lot!

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.

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. 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. Keven broke no rules. 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.

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.

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.

Roger, We DO allow mixed-topic threads on the JFKA Debate board! As long as one of the topics is the JFKA. In fact, I think we have one on here right now. The exception has been if one of the topics is contemporary politics in nature. We've had a lot of heated discussions in those. However, we have become more tolerant of those now that the admins added a rule that, on the JFKA Debate forum, it is a violation to say anything bad about a contemporary politician or political party. With that rule built into the automated warning/penalty system, it is now a breeze to give warnings to people who violate the rule. This is a new policy that is under beta testing. So far it has worked well!

Kirk, I did not threaten to suspend "several people." All I did was notify Pat Spear that he was violating a forum rule and that I would have to penalize him if he didn't correct it. My Pat-Speer decision was and is extremely well reasoned. Nobody has been able to prove it wrong. Why don't you give it a shot? Here we go... Pat's claim is that James Jenkins said the large wound was on top of the head. My decision, upon reading Keven's proof, was that Pat was wrong. So you are now saying that Pat is right? If so, show me one single instance of James Jenkins saying the wound was on the top of the head. I know you can't because Jenkins has always been very consistent with where he placed the wound. He has ALWAYS said the wound was on the back of the head. He has NEVER said the wound was on the top of the head. Jenkins is still alive, and he actually sent a message to Keven saying that Pat's claim is so ridiculous, it doesn't merit a response from him. I have never, ever penalized somebody for disagreeing with me. I don't know where you get off saying something like that. Produce one example of my doing that.

Thank you everybody for your support. I am truly appreciative. And thank you Keven for straightening out what Mark Knight implied about me. And you.

LOL what? I'm driving people away? The fact is we have by far the most active JFKA forum on the internet. And -- other than for this recent Pat Speer thing -- the forum runs pretty smoothly. The mods don't need to hand out many warning points to keep it that way. Jim DiEugenio has said multiple times that this is the best JFK forum on the internet.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Isn't it against forum rules to question the motivations of another member? You have zero evidence or proof of your statement, so I suggest you retract and delete it. It's my opinion.

James, What Jonathan Cohen isn't telling you is that Mark Knight, Ron Bulman and I (the admin team) all voted to put him on probation. I just happened to be the one who nominated him for that. Shortly thereafter, Jonathan voluntarily quit posting. The reason he quit posting is that he knew that he was on probation for good reason. He had a long history of making fun of people's posts, while rarely adding anything of value himself. Jonathan is now speaking up to get revenge on me. It is a fact that, since I became a member of the admin team, we no longer have members mocking and ridiculing other members for their ideas.

James, I'm afraid that you've been receiving fallacious information. First, nobody has been banned. And the forum is running fine. There are just a few members who are disgruntled because I gave Pat Speer a penalty. The problem began when a particular forum member pointed out, and then proved, that Pat Speer had posted false information on what an autopsy witness (James Jenkins) had said. I asked Pat to correct his post because it is against forum rules to post false information. Pat refused to do that, and instead doubled down on his claim. Not only that, but he began additionally claiming that his accuser actually agreed with him (Pat)! Which of course is ridiculous. (It felt like Pat was taunting me for having the nerve to question his post.) So at that point in time Pat had posted TWO falsehoods... one about James Jenkins and one about his accuser. I asked Pat again to correct them. This time, I suggested that he merely add a qualifier to what he was saying -- something like "I believe that ..." or "my interpretation of that is ..." -- so that what he wrote wouldn't be a falsehood. For example, instead of saying, "Jenkins said that the wound was on top of the head" he could say "It is my belief that Jenkins said the wound was on top of the head." (The former is demonstrably false, whereas the latter is true.) Pat again refused. So I gave him a 8-day penalty. (That is to say, he couldn't post for eight days.) Pat will be posting again in three days. As a result of my penalizing Pat, two members became angry with me. One treated me disrespectfully (for which I gave a 2-day penalty) and the other said a number of lies about me and what I was doing. I gave him an 8-day penalty. The next thing I knew, Mark Knight came in late to the thread and proceeded to lambaste the guy who originally accused Pat. But what really took me by surprise is that Mark accused me -- right there publicly -- of being some kind of accomplice or puppet of the guy who had accused Pat. Mark said that he knew that the accuser guy was going to get me to ban him (Mark), and that he (Mark) would enjoy it! Here are Mark's exact words: As an administrator of The Education Forum, I can't wait for you to direct Sandy Larson to suspend my posting priviliges or to ban me from the forum, simply for questioning your techniques when dealing with Mr. Speer. As of 6/2/2024, I am the last remaining administrator from the transfer of ownership of The Education Forum from John Simkin to the group of four new owners they selected in 2014. It seems I am the "last man standing" of that group of four post-Simkin owners unless James Gordon decides to return. Absent that return, I am the senior "owner" of the forum. Mr. Hofeling [the accuser of Pat] , I eagerly await your anticipated attempts to have me suspended or even banned from the forum (This is gonna be a hoot!) When I'm suspended, maybe DVP can go by his former business and pick up a bucket (extra crispy, please, David!) and deliver it to me. I'm 25 miles west of Louisville, David...the same latitude as the first turn at Churchill Downs, and the same longitude as the exit of pit road at Talladega Speedway. I'll supply the drinks as long as you drink decaf cola. [Emphasis added.] What an utterly outrageous post to make! About me! And made in public (not PM)! And then Mark warned another member to be careful agreeing with him (Mark), for he might thereby suffer the same fate. (Implying the I might ban him too!) I couldn't let Mark get away with that without being penalized. So I gave him a one-day penalty, which expired yesterday. (Note that you can't penalize an admin member. So I temporarily removed admin status from Mark's account in order to issue the penalty.)

There is a new topic in the RFK Assassination forum. (See the first post of this thread for a quick link to that.)

Correction: TWO days, not four.

Pat Speer had his posting rights suspended for eight days. It was that long because he lied about James Jenkins, lied about member Keven Hofeling -- multiple times each -- and because he refused to remove the lies after being requested to do so. Jean Ceulemans had his posting rights suspended for two days. In his case it was being disrespectful toward a forum administrator (me). Greg Doudna had his posting rights suspended for eight days. In his case it was for telling a series of lies about Keven Hofeling and myself. For example, for saying that we mistreated Pat for merely having a difference of opinion. We did no such thing.