Keven Hofeling

Hard evidence like this, Mr. Cohen? In the event you are too young to remember this, the CIA had armed the administration of Bush the younger with all kinds of "hard evidence" of WMD's in Iraq and had suppressed all the evidence that there were none. Or are you one of those people who still contends that there were WMD's in Iraq?

Roger, that's excellent summation of the disrupted chain of custody, and the initial suppression efforts of CIA/LIFE. For the naysayers who pretend that the absence of a CIA memo outlining the inner-workings of the work that NPIC and Hawkeyeworks performed on the camea-original Zapruder film is tantamount to there being no evidence of alteration, I pose the following question: If the chain of custody and the work performed on the camera Zapruder film by CIA/LIFE on the weekend of the assassination was so innocent, then why did the CIA release only a few of the documents that were surely generated at every phase of the process from the Rockefeller Commission in 1975, fail to turn over any of those documents to the ARRB in the 1990's (claiming that no relevant documents could be located), and deny the freedom of information requests made by Doug Horne in 2009 for those documents on the basis that they are excluded from FOI requests on the basis that they involved a CIA operation? As recited in the history you provided, the existence of Hawkeyeworks was in such a shroud of secrecy even in 1997, that when NPIC photoanalyst Homer McMahon named the facility while being interviewed by the ARRB, the CIA immediately intervened and ordered that the tape of the interview should be segregated and suppressed from the public. This PDF file (the link to which is below) contains the internal correspondence concerning the ARRB's investigation of the Zapruder film events at the NPIC on the weekend of the assassination, about contacting and interviewing Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter, and includes copies of CIA documents about same provided to the Rockefeller Commission in 1975, and copies of the working notes from the second NPIC session itself: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10336-10024.pdf All that had been released to the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 were some copies of notes made during the second briefing board session which Homer McMahon presided over consisting of Zapruder film frame timing calculations (See pages 21 through 26 of above PDF file), and NONE of the official documents that had to have been generated by the NPIC, CIA and Secret Service to document the activities of those agencies involving the film on the weekend of the assassination. And Doug Horne wrote the following about the CIA denials of his FOIA requests for the documents: "...The CIA refused to provide me with any information about “Hawkeyeworks” when the Agency finally responded to my September 12, 2009 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on February 7, 2011. But that was hardly surprising, since over one year earlier, on January 27, 2010, the CIA wrote to me, cautioning: “The CIA Information Act, 50 U.S.C. Section 431, as amended, exempts CIA operational files from the search, review, publication, and disclosure requirements of the FOIA.” What this meant, in rather blunt language, was that if the CIA was running an “op,” such as the alteration of the Zapruder film immediately after JFK’s assassination, then they didn’t have to search for those records or tell me about it, in any way. So the failure by the CIA to answer any of my many questions about “Hawkeyeworks” means literally—nothing...." http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ The same legacy of secrecy initiated by the CIA through LIFE in 1963 continues today as the result of the Zapruder family having signed over their rights to all of the Zapruder film materials (except for the extant "original" film which the U.S. Government seized, paying the family 13 million dollars in compensation) to the Sixth Floor Museum which aggressively opposes any public dissemination and/or research of the film using threats of litigation. There is also the episode whereby it appears that the 5 x 7 transparencies of the 1998 MPI first generation copy of the extant "original" Zapruder film were altered to eliminate evidence of the infamous black patch on the back of JFK's head which appears during the headshot sequence of the extant Zapruder film, as well as "disappearing" the 5 x 7 TIME-LIFE transparencies of the Zapruder film -- which the museum’s Archivist, Gary Mack, acknowledged receiving in a well-publicized article in 2000 -- when Sydney Wilkinson and Doug Horne sought access to those materials in 2012. The Sixth Floor Museum is at this point quite successfully obstructing the release of Sidney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead's documentary (entitled "Alteration") which presents the analyses of at least 3 Hollywood cinematographers -- familiar with the film alteration technology that existed in 1963 -- who have concluded that the Zapruder film has been altered. For information about the above recited encounters with the Sixth Floor Museum see "MASQUERADE AT THE MUSEUM" by David Mantik via the following link: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30150-the-logic-of-zapruder-film-alteration/?do=findComment&comment=528713 It is my belief that the release of this documentary, if ever the obstacles imposed by the Sixth Floor Museum are surmounted, will be a game changer with regard to the argument that the extant Zapruder film was altered during the weekend of the assassination, and the naysayers who currently side with the CIA cover-up of the evidence of alteration will be forced to contend with the conclusions of bona-fide Hollywood professionals. The following is an excerpt of a recent interview of two of these experts, Paul Rutan, Jr., and Garret Smith, in an article by Jacob Hornberger that was published on August 16, 2023, which in relevant part provides as follows: https://www.fff.org/2023/08/16/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-4/ "...In my book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, I include a partial transcript of an interview of Rutan and Smith, both of whom closely examined a high-quality copy of the extant Zapruder film — that is, the film that is in the National Archives that is purported to be the original film but that is actually the altered, fraudulent copy of the film that the CIA secretly produced at its top-secret Hawkeyeworks facility in Rochester, New York. I was fortunate to be able to include a portion of that interview in my book. The interview was conducted by Thom Whitehead, a Hollywood television and feature-film mastering editor specializing in motion pictures. The interview was conducted as part of a documentary on the Zapruder film that is being produced by Whitehead and his colleague Sydney Wilkinson. Douglas Horne, the author of the watershed book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board and who served on the staff of the ARRB, requested permission from Whitehead and Wilkinson to include a portion of the interview in my book, and they graciously agreed. As far as I know, my book is the first and only place where that portion of the interview has been published. Rutan and Smith The following are excerpts from the partial transcript of that interview that I included in my book: Smith: .…Now, as to my credibility, thirty-seven years in the movie business, I’m not sure how much lower you can go than that; and [I] just got done with nearly twenty-five years at Paramount, where I basically ran their mastering for most of those years and spent the last few years investigating new digital production technology. Rutan: [I’ve] been doing this since 1968, I was delivering film in New York City; and then full time from ’74 I got hired to work for my Dad, and I worked for him for 12 years — started out as janitor, and then shipping, and then film cleaning, and then film repair, and then optical lineup, and then optical printing. So, ever since then I’ve worked for a couple of companies, set up a department at COMPAC video, and I had my own company for 14 years doing restoration. Whitehead: Do you see any signs of alteration? Rutan: Yes. Whitehead: Where do you see them? Rutan: Well [speaking while pointing at frame 313 on a large HD monitor], in the — this explosion right here doesn’t look, it’s, see [pointing] — it’s got defects on it — but it just doesn’t look real, it doesn’t look like blood, it just doesn’t look real…. Rutan: I think you’re looking at a patch, at a photographic patch that they put on the back of his [JFK’s] head. It’s crude, but if you run the film you’ll see that it moves — differently than his head does, as well. So, it’s an optical, some sort of an optical [effect] that they put on there, to not show the back of his head. Whitehead: In your opinion, what do you think would have been the most likely way this would have been accomplished? Rutan: With an optical printer, with an aerial optical printer…. Rutan: Well, the only thing I can see really is how predominant the black patch is in this particular frame [pointing]. I mean, it’s clear to me that that is not the back of his head, that that is some kind of a [sic] optical effect, that has been laid on the back of his head by an optical house. And this [pointing at the large pink “blob” on the right side of JFK’s head] is also an optical effect. But the back of his head is what always — what I’m always drawn to, because you — it’s almost like he’s wearing a toupee, because there’s the top of his head [pointing at JFK’s auburn hair on the very top of his head] and that’s basically the color it should be, and then it’s black, it’s just solid black. Smith: You know, the density doesn’t match — the shoulders don’t match that [meaning that the shadow on the back of JFK’s shoulders does not match the black patch on the back of his head] and [the black patch] doesn’t match the top of his head [pointing to JFK’s auburn colored hair on top]…. Smith: It just seems really obvious that the frames where they’ve matted out the back of the head, and added in the pink splash, the pink water-balloon — whatever it is that’s supposed to be the blood — it’s just not even believable … maybe fifty years ago that might have passed muster, but for anybody — I mean — my impression is if I showed it to a 12-year old kid, they would say it was a cartoon…."

Wow! You definitely did some heavy lifting writing this post. Very impressive analysis of the photos of James Jenkins from the videotaped interview, three screenshots of which appear in William Matson Law's book, which you have analyzed in depth. The following is from a post in another thread which I believe to be relevant to the analysis of those photographs, so I republish same for you as follows: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30511-why-does-james-jenkins-say-the-gaping-wound-was-on-the-back-of-the-head-to-everybody-except-for-pat-speer/?do=findComment&comment=538293 Pat Speer wrote: You've stated that the following screenshot which you darkened and presented on your website as showing James Jenkins pointing to a HOLE on the TOP of JFK's "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": The following are the series of images in William Law's book from which you selected the particular screenshot that you darkened (evidently to obscure that Jenkins is actually touching the top of the back of his head) and put on your website: When looking at this series of photos the question that came immediately to mind is whether the captions were carefully selected to accompany each picture, so I asked William Law that question and he told me that it was not him but the editor of his book who paired the photos with the captions. The following are my questions to William Law as well as his answers: So while you are heavily relying upon the notion that William Law carefully paired the "open hole" caption with the photo in which Jenkins is placing his fingers on the upper part of the back of his head, the truth is we don't even know if the photos and the captions are precisely paired or are even in the correct order, and we don't know whether Law's editor had a good working knowledge of the issues in order to pair them correctly. What we do know is that Jenkins when demonstrating the location of what he calls the "OCCIPITAL-PARIETAL wound" moves his hand all around the area, and that renders these photographs as being taken somewhat randomly, and even William Law states that in the photo you have seized upon for your top of the head theory, Jenkins is "CLEARLY" touching the back of his head. And what does James Jenkins himself think of your interpretation of the photo? James Jenkins said it is so "ludicrous" it doesn't even deserve a comment. Pat Spear wrote: NO, the photo and associated caption DOES NOT prove your point. Nobody thinks that but you, and even more importantly, William Law and James Jenkins say that you are wrong. And that can easily be demonstrated with the following video and GIF of James Jenkins demonstrating where the hole in JFK's head was when he was directly asked this very question (and NOTE that when he demonstrates the location of the hole he specifically says "it was mostly parietal-occipital": Now, Mr. Speer, does this look like James Jenkins is demonstrating a hole on the TOP of JFK's head? And no, this isn't the result of Jenkins changing his story. You've made up the "changing his story" allegation out of whole cloth for which you owe James Jenkins, William Law, and the JFKA research community at large a public apology. Here is James Jenkins in 1998 demonstrating the occipital-parietal wound in exactly the same way: And Mr. Speer, we are still waiting for you to produce just one quote or other piece of evidence from James Jenkins showing that he has ever once claimed that there was a HOLE in the top of JFK's head. Just ONE, Mr. Speer, can you produce that?

Pat Speer wrote: You state that the following screenshot which you darkened and presented on your website as showing James Jenkins pointing to a HOLE on the TOP of JFK's "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": The following are the series of images in William Law's book from which you selected the particular screenshot that you darkened (evidently to obscure that Jenkins is actually touching the top of the back of his head) and put on your website: When looking at this series of photos the question that came immediately to mind is whether the captions were carefully selected to accompany each picture, so I asked William Law that question and he told me that it was not him but the editor of his book who paired the photos with the captions. The following are my questions to William Law as well as his answers: So while you are heavily relying upon the notion that William Law carefully paired the "open hole" caption with the photo in which Jenkins is placing his fingers on the upper part of the back of his head, the truth is we don't even know if the photos and the captions are precisely paired or are even in the correct order, and we don't know whether Law's editor had a good working knowledge of the issues in order to pair them correctly. What we do know is that Jenkins when demonstrating the location of what he calls the "OCCIPITAL-PARIETAL wound" moves his hand all around the area, and that renders these photographs as being taken somewhat randomly, and even William Law states that in the photo you have seized upon for your top of the head theory, Jenkins is "CLEARLY" touching the back of his head. And what does James Jenkins himself think of your interpretation of the photo? James Jenkins said it is so "ludicrous" it doesn't even deserve a comment. Pat Spear wrote: NO, the photo and associated caption DOES NOT prove your point. Nobody thinks that but you, and even more importantly, William Law and James Jenkins say that you are wrong. And that can easily be demonstrated with the following video and GIF of James Jenkins demonstrating where the hole in JFK's head was when he was directly asked this very question (and NOTE that when he demonstrates the location of the hole he specifically says "it was mostly parietal-occipital"😞 Now, Mr. Speer, does this look like James Jenkins is demonstrating a hole on the TOP of JFK's head? And no, this isn't the result of Jenkins changing his story. You've made up the "changing his story" allegation out of whole cloth for which you owe James Jenkins, William Law, and the JFKA research community at large a public apology. Here is James Jenkins in 1998 demonstrating the occipital-parietal wound in exactly the same way: And Mr. Speer, we are still waiting for you to produce just one quote or other piece of evidence from James Jenkins showing that he has ever once claimed that there was a HOLE in the top of JFK's head. Just ONE, Mr. Speer, can you produce that?

I disagree with the suppressed premise of your statement: That disputing your demonstrably false factual claims and mischaracterizations is uncivil. Secondly, I don't know what you mean by Doug Horne's "theory." Would you please kindly elaborate?

I think that there is remarkable similarity between the occipital-parietal wound that Dr. Robert McClelland drew with his own hand on TMWKK in 1988 and the occipital-parietal wound that James Jenkins drew on a skull model in 2018, as follows: And in the following from the 1991 Dallas Medical Witnesses Conference, James Jenkins tells us that the wound was like Dr. McClelland's drawing (the one in Six Seconds in Dallas), but a little higher:

And why are Wilkinson and Whitehead's 6k scans superior even to the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" stills? The answer has to do with the distinction between and utility of logarithmic color versus standard colorization. The scratches and mold that you can see on the film are because the 6k scans were made in log color. Sydney Wilkinson explained this to Doug Horne in a letter that he read while being interviewed on the 1/7/2019 Midnight Writer News, Episode 107, https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/ , as follows: ---------------------------------------------------- SYDNEY WILKINSON WROTE: "Our scans show everything in the frame, the good, the bad, and the ugly." By that they mean the scratches and the mold on the film. They wrote "There is so much detail that individual grains of 8mm film stock are evident in the 6k logarithmic scans. It's hardly pretty, but the images are glaringly sharp. That is why we see all the scratches, mold, dirt, stains, and other film anomalies. Linear color is what we view on our TVs and computers, the color looks right to us. The versions of the Zapruder film we see on television documentaries or DVDs like "Images of an Assassination" sold in 1998 or on YouTube have been cleaned up and color corrected. Much of the scratches, dirt, mold, etc., have been removed along with color correcting each scene to create a much richer looking element. The processes used to do this can be grueling and take a long time depending upon how much money and how much time the producers want to spend on it. But we did not want to make our images look prettier. We did not want to touch anything because our goal was to conduct a forensic scientific study of the film. We wanted to see what was really there in every frame not what might have been hidden or obscured by cleaning or color correcting. So logarithmic color, or log color for short, is what professionals use when coming from or going to film because it brings out much more detail in blacks and mid-blacks by stretching the blacks into grays. However, without color correction, which we have not done, the image looks a little washed out, but the amount of information in the blacks is substantially increased. The primary reason we want log color space was to see all the information in the shadows, and what we saw was astounding. If our transfer was linear color we never would have seen the patch on the back of the head in frame 317 or it would have looked like a shadow. Most importantly, log shadow space does not make a shadow look like a patch." Doug Horne told the story of how Sidney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead became involved in Zapruder film research in his "Addendum: The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood," of his 2009 "Inside the ARRB," Chapter 14, Vol. IV, as follows: "...On June 3, 2009 I exchanged introductory e-mails with one Sydney Wilkinson, an accomplished professional in film and video post-production in Hollywood—specifically, in the marketing of post production services within the motion picture film industry. She has decades of experience under her belt in dealing with editors, experts in film restoration, and film studio executives. She lives and breathes the professional culture of the motion picture film industry, and has working relationships with many of the major players involved in post-production in Hollywood. When she first introduced herself to me she insisted that she was neither a researcher, author, nor a historian; and in spite of her continued self-deprecation, I have explained to her on numerous occasions since that day that she is now indeed a JFK assassination researcher, by simple virtue of what she is doing, whether she ever publishes a word or not! We are what we do, and what Sydney Wilkinson has done is truly extraordinary. Sydney revealed to me in short order that she had purchased a dupe negative on 35 mm film of the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film created by the National Archives. She did so purely for research purposes, to satisfy her own curiosity about whether or not the extant film in the Archives was the authentic out-of-camera original, or whether it was an altered film masquerading as the original. She had already purchased a copy of the Zavada report from the National Archives and knew its contents backwards and forwards, and was also familiar with the interviews of Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter of NPIC conducted by the ARRB staff in 1997. She was aware of my former role as the ARRB’s liaison with Kodak and Rollie Zavada, and was also very familiar with the existing literature about the film’s possible alteration. In short, she was simply a very curious American citizen who, out of both natural curiosity and a sense of patriotism, wanted to know the truth about this famous film. She had literally “put her money where her mouth was” by forking out $ 795.90 for a 35 mm dupe negative of the Zapruder film from a source whose honesty and integrity could not be challenged by any future researchers: the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Counting the extant film as zero, she had obtained a fifth generation copy (as explained earlier in this chapter). If she had requested a projection print (i.e., a positive) she would have purchased a fourth generation copy; but the preferred medium for studying film characteristics in Hollywood is a motion picture negative, so she settled for a dupe negative of a fourth generation projection print. She wanted a dupe negative because her intent from the beginning was to subject the Zapruder film to the serious, professional scrutiny of Hollywood film professionals in an attempt to resolve the ongoing debate about its authenticity. Sydney’s attitude going into this effort was similar to my own attitude about the Zapruder film when I began working for the ARRB in 1995; she was very curious about the issues that had been raised about the Zapruder film’s authenticity, and simply wanted to know the answer, one way or the other. I was stunned by the simplicity and power of the concept behind her ongoing research effort: only Hollywood visual effects technicians or other film professionals familiar with the optical effects techniques of the 1960s would be truly qualified to say whether or not there was evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film’s image content! While Rollie Zavada was a film chemist and a Kodak project manager (and was eminently qualified to study film density and edge print), he had no practical experience with the creation of motion picture visual effects, and I therefore viewed him as unqualified to make a final determination as to whether or not the Zapruder film was an altered film. (The ARRB’s senior management understood this also, which was why he was not asked to comment upon the film’s image content in his limited authenticity study.) I immediately wondered: Why hadn’t anyone ever attempted this before? If anyone had attempted it before 2003 (the year that Monaco in San Francisco made the Forensic Copy of the extant film for NARA), the only tool available for study in Hollywood would have been a multi-generation bootleg copy of one of the Moses Weitzman blowups (from 8 mm to 35 mm) made circa 1968; because the provenance of the bootleg copy would have been suspect, so would any results obtained from such a study. If anyone had attempted this subsequent to 2003, neither Sydney nor I was aware of such an effort. Intuitively, I felt that this was a “first.” A big first. For about thirty years, from 1963 to 1993, the Zapruder film’s authenticity was assumed, and went largely unquestioned, and the principal arguments about the film had been about what its image content depicted. For about the past fifteen years, most of the arguments pertaining to the film had been about its authenticity, not about its image content. The beauty of Syd Wilkinson’s research effort was not only that qualified Hollywood professionals would now be assessing the extant film’s image content to determine whether any frames showed evidence of alteration, but that the provenance of the film being studied could not be questioned! She was not going to be asking Hollywood to study a bootleg copy: she had a bonafide, genuine, guaranteed, unaltered copy of the extant film in the Archives. Truth is often the daughter of time. Conducting this kind of study was an idea whose time had come, and such a study was now overdue. I could hardly believe my good fortune at being included in her research effort. Sydney then stunned me by saying that someone close to her who was an editor had arranged for an HD (high-definition) digital scan of each frame on her dupe negative, and that the HD scan was already completed. The HD scan of each 35 mm frame contained 1080 pixels in the vertical dimension and 1920 pixels in the horizontal direction, literally a wealth of information. Furthermore, the HD scan performed of each frame was a so-called “flat” or “exposure neutral” scan, in which the film’s images were NOT manipulated to make them more pleasing to the eye (as MPI did with its Ektachrome transparencies taken of each frame in 1997). Wilkinson and her editor friend instructed the person who performed the HD scan not to “clip the whites” or “crush the blacks” when conducting the scan. Such practices are commonly employed by video editors during post-production to make films more visually appealing, but when this occurs detail and valuable information is lost. The HD scan created of the dupe negative of the Zapruder film was neutral, meaning that it was not shaded or manipulated for artistic or aesthetic purposes, and that there was a maximum of detail to study from each film frame. And in two frames in particular, those details were apparently stunning, and quite damning. Sydney e-mailed to me JPEG images of two of the HD scans—frames 220 and 317. What I saw was electrifying, and certainly appeared to me at first blush (as they had to Sydney and a close associate of hers who is a video editor) to be evidence that the extant Zapruder film was an altered film, something I had just concluded, for a host of reasons, earlier in this chapter...." And Doug Horne provided a synopsis with additional details in his online essay entitled "The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration" "...Altered Head Wound Imagery: California resident Sydney Wilkinson purchased a 35 mm dupe negative of the Zapruder film from the National Archives in 2008—a third generation rendition, according to the Archives—and with the assistance of her husband, who is a video editor at a major post-production film house in Hollywood, commissioned both “HD” scans (1920 x 1080 pixels per scan) of each frame of the dupe negative, as well as “6K” scans of each frame. Because the Zapruder film’s image, from edge to edge, only partially fills each 35 mm film frame obtained from the Archives, the so-called “6K” scan of each frame is therefore ‘only’ the equivalent of a “4K” image, i.e., 4096 x 3112 pixels, for each Zapruder frame imaged. Each Zapruder frame scan still constitutes an enormous amount of information: 72.9 MB, or 12.7 million pixels per frame. These “4K equivalent” scans of the Zapruder film used by this couple to conduct their forensic, scientific study of the assassination images are 10-bit log color DPX scans, otherwise known in common parlance as “flat scans.” These logarithmic color scans bring out much more information in the shadows than would the linear color normally viewed on our television screens and computers. Therefore, much more information in each Zapruder film frame is revealed by these logarithmic scans, than would be revealed in a linear color scan of the same frame. As reported in the author’s book, numerous Hollywood film industry editors, colorists, and restoration experts have viewed the “6K” scans of the Zapruder film as part of the couple’s ongoing forensic investigation. In the logarithmic color scans there are many frames (notably 317, 321, and 323) which show what appear to be “black patches,” or crude animation, obscuring the hair on the back of JFK’s head. The blacked-out areas just happen to coincide precisely with the location of the avulsed, baseball-sized exit wound in the right rear of JFK’s head seen by the Parkland Hospital treatment staff, in Dallas, on the day he was assassinated. In the opinion of virtually all of the dozens of motion picture film professionals who have viewed the Zapruder film “6K” scans, the dark patches do not look like natural shadows, and appear quite anomalous. Some of these film industry professionals—in particular, two film restoration experts accustomed to looking at visual effects in hundreds of 1950s and 1960s era films—have declared that the aforementioned frames are proof that the Zapruder film has been altered, and that it was crudely done.[35]If true, this explains LIFE’s decision to suppress the film as a motion picture for twelve years, lest its alteration be discovered by any professionals using it in a broadcast. The extant Zapruder film also depicts a large head wound in the top and right side of President Kennedy’s skull—most notably in frames 335 and 337—that was not seen by any of the treatment staff at Parkland Hospital. The implication here is that if the true exit wound on President Kennedy’s head can be obscured in the Zapruder film through use of aerial imaging (i.e., self-matting animation, applied to each frame’s image via an animation stand married to an optical printer)—as revealed by the “6K” scans of the 35 mm dupe negative—then the same technique could be used to add a desired exit wound, one consistent with the cover story of a lone shooter firing from behind. The apparent alteration of the Zapruder film seen in the area of the rear of JFK’s head in the “6K” scans is consistent with the capabilities believed to have been in place at “Hawkeyeworks” in 1963. In a recent critique of the author’s Zapruder film alteration hypothesis, retired Kodak film chemist (and former ARRB consultant, from 1997-1998), Roland Zavada, quoted professor Raymond Fielding, author of the famous 1965 textbook mentioned above on visual special effects, as saying that it would be impossible for anyone to have altered an 8 mm film in 1963 without leaving artifacts that could be easily detected. I completely agree with this assessment attributed to professor Fielding, and I firmly believe that the logarithmic color, “6K,” 10-bit, DPX scans made of each frame of the 35 mm dupe negative of the Zapruder film have discovered just that: blatant and unmistakable artifacts of the film’s alteration. Critics of this ongoing forensic investigation in California have tried to dismiss the interim findings by displaying other, dissimilar images from the Zapruder film that have been processed in linear color (not logarithmic color), and in some cases are also using inferior images of the Zapruder film of much poorer resolution than the 6K scans, or images from the film in which the linear color contrast has been adjusted and manipulated (i.e., darkened). Saying that “it just isn’t so” is not an adequate defense for those who desperately cling to belief in the Zapruder film’s authenticity, when the empirical proof (the untainted and raw imagery) exists to back up the fact that it is so. Anyone else who purchases a 35 mm dupe negative of the Zapruder film from the National Archives for $795.00, and who expends the time and money to run “6K” scans of each frame, will end up with the same imagery Sydney Wilkinson has today, for her scans simply record what is present on the extant film in the National Archives; she and her husband have done nothing to alter the images in any way. Their scans simply record what is present on the extant film...." https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

______________ https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30487-a-comprehensive-history-of-pat-speers-false-claims-about-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-on-the-education-forum/?do=findComment&comment=538049 ______________ Denise, directly above you are responding to an excerpt from the "COMPREHENSIVE HISTORY OF PAT SPEER'S FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT FORMER BETHESDA AUTOPSY TECH JAMES JENKINS ON THE EDUCATION FORUM" which initiated this thread (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30487-a-comprehensive-history-of-pat-speers-false-claims-about-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-on-the-education-forum/), and it should be pointed out that my commentary about that excerpt in this particular instance (see below in bold red) was not that Mr. Speer was making a false claim about the Harper fragment. Rather, it was to point out that in 2012 Speer was treating James Jenkins's claim that he saw discoloration at JFK's tight temple -- which according to Jenkins indicated to him the existence of a wound of entrance at JFK's right temple -- as credible (something that Speer has more recently vigorously disputed). It is interesting, however, that Speer was using Jenkins's claim in this regard to support HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel member Dr. Lawrence Angel's placement of the Harper fragment at the right anterior region of JFK's head. But for the sake of clarification, this wasn't listed as an example of one of Speer's factual misrepresentations about the claims of James Jenkins about the JFKA medical evidence. ______________ 1-14-2012 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/18602-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/?do=findComment&comment=243833 Out of respect to you, Jim, I've been holding back on this, but since you bring it up... OfABCsandxrays.jpg When properly placed on the skull, the metal fragment on the Harper fragment is just forward and above Kennedy's right ear. James Curtis Jenkins, we should recall, told writer Harrison Livingstone that "just above the right ear there was some discoloration of the skull cavity with the bone area being gray and there was some speculation that it might be lead." That's no coincidence, IMO. A bullet broke up at that location. Speer again asserting Jenkins's account of seeing an entrance wound at JFK's right temple(something about which in later years Speer will take the opposite position in the context of questioning Jenkins's credibility). ______________ But with regard to the identification of the Harper fragment as occipital bone, I completely agree with you that the evidence that it is in fact occipital bone rather than parietal bone (as claimed by Dr. Lawrence Angel) is of much greater probative value and evidentiary weight, and that this is primarily because of the initial identification of the actual fragment (which thereafter disappeared) by the Dallas pathologists. It is on this point that Mr. Speer disagrees, and attempts to spin the notion that those pathologists were less qualified than Dr. Angel to determine that the fragment was occipital bone, which you may recall, as it was, in pertinent part, in response to a post of yours dated May 5, 2024: ______________ https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30206-the-significance-of-the-forward-moving-fragment/?do=findComment&comment=530123 ______________ Note that in my March 10, 2024 response, which follows, I did not contend that Mr. Speer was making a factual misrepresentation. Rather, I demonstrated that the analysis on which he was basing his opinion about the supposed inferior qualifications of the Dallas Pathologists was flawed: ______________ https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30206-the-significance-of-the-forward-moving-fragment/?do=findComment&comment=530656 This is a prime example of the issue acute confirmation bias poses to fundamental logic: Let’s analyze the important issues relevant to the comparison of evidentiary weight between a hospital chief pathologist’s identification of a bone fragment as occipital bone and a contrary identification made by a forensic anthropologist or a neuroanatomist based on x-rays of the fragment without having the fragment itself: Expertise and Background: Hospital Chief Pathologist: Typically a medical doctor with expertise in pathology. Familiar with human anatomy, including bone structures. May have practical experience handling and examining human remains. Forensic Anthropologist / Neuroanatomist: Forensic Anthropologist: Specializes in the study of human skeletal remains. Trained to analyze bones from an anthropological perspective. May not have direct experience with clinical pathology or handling fresh specimens. Neuroanatomist: Specializes in the study of the nervous system and brain anatomy. May have expertise in interpreting radiographic images related to neuroanatomy. May not have direct experience with handling skeletal remains. Identification Methods: Hospital Chief Pathologist: Likely examined the actual bone fragment visually and manually. Could assess texture, color, shape, and other physical characteristics. May have considered context (where the fragment was found). Forensic Anthropologist / Neuroanatomist: Relying solely on x-rays (radiographs) lacks the full context. Analyzed bone density, structure, and any visible features. Did not physically handle the fragment. Limitations and Considerations: Hospital Chief Pathologist: Direct examination provides tactile information. May be influenced by contextual factors (e.g., location of discovery). Subjective interpretation possible. Forensic Anthropologist / Neuroanatomist: X-rays provide objective evidence but lack the complete picture. Missing information about the fragment’s physical condition. Interpretation based on radiographic features alone. Weight of Evidence: Hospital Chief Pathologist: Direct examination carries significant weight. Personal handling and visual assessment enhance credibility. Contextual factors strengthen the identification. Forensic Anthropologist / Neuroanatomist: X-rays provide objective evidence but are indirect. Weight depends on the quality of x-ray analysis. Lack of tactile information may weaken the identification. Conclusion: Both identifications contribute to the overall assessment. Combining direct examination and radiographic analysis provides a more robust evaluation. The missing fragment complicates the comparison, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evidence. In summary, while both experts play crucial roles, the hospital chief pathologist’s direct examination holds greater evidentiary weight due to physical interaction with the bone fragment. An essential part of the analysis is that Dr. Angel's work was done within the context of the documented cover-up by the HSCA of the large wound in the back of President Kennedy's head. Dr. Angel faced a challenging and literally unsolvable puzzle due to the altered photographic and X-ray evidence that eliminated the most obvious solution, erasing the occipital-parietal wound from consideration. The Senate Select Committee's dedication to this task led to the suppression of interviews with Dr. Cairns and Dr. Harper, classifying the information as "top secret" for fifty years. The implications of this state of affairs were outlined in a Staff Memorandum of the Assassination Records Review Board, as follows: STAFF MEMORANDUM May 4, 1998 (Draft #5) TO: JFK Research Community and Interested Citizens FROM: Douglas P. Horne, Supervisory Analyst, ARRB T. Jeremy Gunn, General Counsel and Executive Director, ARRB SUBJECT: ARRB Efforts to “Clarify the Record” Regarding the Medical Evidence in the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy ...(5) On Saturday, November 23, 1963, Billy A. Harper, a premedical student, found a piece of bone in the grass in the middle of Dealey Plaza (just south of Elm Street), and took it to his uncle, Jack C. Harper, M.D., who subsequently delivered it to A. B. Cairns, M.D., chief pathologist at the Methodist Hospital in Dallas, for examination. Two each color positive transparencies of both the convex and concave surfaces of the fragment, shown next to an inch ruler for scale, were exposed by M. Wayne Balleter, chief medical photographer at that hospital (and later picked up from Mrs. Jack Harper by the FBI on July 10, 1964).11 This piece of bone was subsequently delivered to Military Physician to the President, RADM George Burkley, MC, USN, on November 27, 1963.12 Dr. J. Lawrence Angel, an eminent physical anthropologist who served as a consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel of 9 pathologists, determined from examination of the photographic images alone (since the Harper fragment was by then missing), along with JFK autopsy cranial fragment x-rays 4, 5 and 6 (of four other skull fragments--also missing by the time of the HSCA’s investigation) that it was a portion of the right parietal bone of President Kennedy’s skull.13 However, nowhere in HSCA, volume 7 is it mentioned that an HSCA staff member interviewed Dr. Jack C. Harper and Dr. A. B. Cairns, who both personally examined and handled the piece of skull bone on the weekend following the assassination, and that Dr. Harper told staff interviewer Andy Purdy on August 8, 1977 that “...the consensus of the doctors who viewed the skull fragment was that it was part of the occipital region;” 14 nor is it mentioned anywhere in HSCA volume 7 that Dr. Cairns told HSCA staff member Andy Purdy that “...the piece of skull fragment came from an area approximately 2.5 to 3 inches above the spine area...it had the markings of a piece of skull fragment from the lower occipital area, specifically: suture and inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull.” 15 Andy Purdy’s staff interview report summarizing his discussions with Drs. Harper and Cairns did not become public until 1993, following passage of the JFK Act. Failure by the HSCA to publish this interview report, or to mention in any way in its final report or accompanying volumes, this dissenting opinion of the head of the pathology department at a local hospital (that was contrary to Dr. Angel’s opinion), raised new doubts about the conclusions reached by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. Furthermore, given the location of the occipital bone (in the posterior skull), Dr. Cairns’ professional opinion (that the “Harper” bone fragment was occipital) seems to provide corroboration for the generally consistent Parkland Hospital Trauma Room One testimony that President Kennedy’s head wound was posterior (in the back of the head), vice superior and lateral (in the top and right side of the head), as shown in the autopsy photographs--making more problematic the disparity between Parkland and Bethesda descriptions of the large (exit) wound in President Kennedy’s head...." ________________________ 11. HSCA volume 7, page 122. 12. Receipt for two bone fragments signed by RADM Burkley on 11/27/63, HSCA Record Number 10910385, Agency File No. 002631. 13. HSCA volume 7, pgs. 123 and 228-230. 14. Andy Purdy staff interview report dated August 17, 1977, page 1. 15. Ibid., page 2 FIFTEEN INDICATORS OF AN OCCIPITAL ORIGIN FOR THE HARPER FRAGMENT BY DR. DAVID MANTIK ______________ Just as often as he misrepresents the testimony of occipital-parietal wound witnesses, if not more often, Speer simply conducts flawed analyses which appear to me to be primarily calculated to support his own confirmation bias that all of the Parkland Hospital and Bethesda autopsy witnesses were wrong about their reported observations of a large gaping posterior wound on the right side of the back of JFK's head.

This is where James Jenkins himself sketched the location of what he believes to be an entrance wound in JFK's right temple...

You've suddenly elucidated the correct point -- that one thing has nothing to do with the other -- but you don't appear to understand how it applies to the point that you yourself seemed to be attempting to make in your initial post. Why might that be, Mr. Cohen?

Mr. Cohen, are you claiming that Dr. Thompson's current opinion that the extant "original" Zapruder film is authentic somehow invalidates the fact that LIFE magazine made every conceivable effort to suppress his use of the film to demonstrate that there were at least three shooters executing a crossfire ambush of President Kennedy? The following highlighted passages from "Bernard Geis's "A Note From The Publisher" appear to me to conclusively make the case that LIFE, targeting Dr. Thompson, attempted to sequester all information pertaining to the Zapruder film from the American public: And then, after Six Seconds in Dallas was published, Time, Inc. even sued Dr. Thompson and his publisher for infringement of copyright merely because of the charcoal sketches of the Zapruder frames in the book. A federal court granted summary judgment to Thompson and his publisher ten months later in a landmark decision stressing fair use rights. "Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Assoc., 293 F. Supp. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)" https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/293/130/1982339/ Well Mr. Cohen, would you please kindly elaborate about your apparent position that Dr. Thompson's current views about Zapruder film authenticity somehow invalidate the above account of LIFE's efforts to suppress the Zapruder film from the American public? And while you are at it, perhaps as an exercise of your Lone Nutter bona fides you could explain to us in the spirit of cover-up and suppression that is so inherent to the Warren Report why the efforts of the CIA through its proxies, TIME/LIFE and the Sixth Floor Museum, are warranted, and a good thing for the American people?

And with regard to the current efforts to suppress the Zapruder film from research and analyses we have the following conduct of the Sixth Floor Museum -- the successor to Time/Life as the deep state guardian of the Zapruder film: ____________ In November 2010, Sidney Wilkinson encountered a problem with the Sixth Floor Museum -- that should raise some eyebrows -- which derailed her production plan for her documentary. The short version of that story is told by Dr. David Mantik in the following video: VIDEO IS QUEUED TO 27:46 WHERE DR. DAVID MANTIK TELLS THE STORY OF SYDNEY WILKINSON AND THEIR VISITS TO THE SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM TO EXAMINE THE 5 x 7 TRANSPARENCIES FROM THE ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM https://youtu.be/hlGaFMvZEI8?t=1666 ____________ Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik, and Sydney Wilkinson on apparent fraud in Zapruder film transparencies committed while in the custody of the Sixth Floor Museum: 'MASQUERADE AT THE MUSEUM' Excerpt from 'THE JFK ASSASSINATION DECODED: Criminal Forgery in the Autopsy Photographs and X-rays' by David Mantik, MD, PhD. April 15, 2013 Revised November 2021 David W. Mantik (DM) and Sydney Wilkinson (SW) INTRODUCTION (DM) Within several years of the JFK assassination, David Lifton had been captivated by the Zapruder images81 following frame Z-313 " ...because the back of the head seemed all blacked out."82 Curiously, this was several years before he began to suspect that the entire film had been (illegally) edited. He recalls that when Wesley Liebeler (in 1967) had ordered the 4x5 inch transparencies from LIFE magazine for his class (see further discussion of these below) the back of the head still lacked detail.83 In June 1970, under the ruse of a possible purchase, Time-Life permitted Lifton and colleagues to examine multiple film items at their Beverly Hills office. These included 4x5 inch transparencies, an 8 mm film, a 16 mm film and a 35 mm film.84 The back of the head still seemed blacked out to Lifton, which was also consistent with the LIFE magazine images. On that occasion, Lifton viewed the frames after Z-334 (the last one published by the Warren Commission) and discovered that the supposed right facial wound of JFK (not seen by anyone at Parkland) was enormous-and that it appeared merely to be artwork. Provoked by this, Lifton then studied "Insert Matte Photography" and suggested that the "blacking out" effect might also be artwork. The blacked-out posterior skull was radically inconsistent with the recollections of the Parkland physicians. More to the point, though, it was also thoroughly inconsistent with their contemporaneous notes, which are included in the Warren Report. These professionals uniformly recalled a right posterior skull defect about the size of an orange. These doctors also (uniformly) disagreed with the autopsy photographs, which, like the Zapruder film, showed no posterior skull defect. In fact, this disagreement (about the hole in the back of the head) was so scandalous that I listed sixteen Parkland physicians85 who stated that the autopsy photographs86) were distinctly different from what they recalled. On the contrary, no physician who saw the autopsy photographs (of the back of the head) immediately recognized them. Based on my own viewing of the autopsy photographs and X-rays on multiple occasions at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and greatly assisted by optical density measurements made directly on JFK's X­ rays at NARA, I proposed a skull reconstruction87 with a large upper occipital defect. In addition, an adjoining site just to the right of this defect) appeared to be a bone flap that could swing open or closed, which was consistent with the recollections of Dr. Robert McClelland. In fact, McClelland had approved a sketch for Josiah Thompson, which was accompanied by his own pertinent quotation about the bone flap.88 Based on these considerations, even if one accepted an intact (or nearly intact) posterior scalp (i.e., just the soft tissue), a fairly large posterior skull defect could no longer be denied. Curiously enough, such a bony defect was in fact, also consistent with the drawings by autopsy pathologist J. Thornton Boswell.89 So now the question became obvious: How could the scalp appear so intact in the Zapruder film (and in the autopsy photographs), while an obvious defect was seen at Parkland Hospital (at least in the bone, but probably also in the scalp)? Actually, the problem lay even deeper than that: The ancillary autopsy personnel (at Bethesda) agreed with the Parkland witnesses-they also recalled a large hole in the posterior skull.90 Photographs of these witnesses--from both Parkland and Bethesda--consistently illustrated the hole and were compiled by Robert Groden.91 The issue of a posterior skull defect is not a mere curiosity--on the contrary, it goes to the very heart of the JFK assassination case. Such a defect clearly implies a frontal shot, and therefore unavoidably means conspiracy. If the forensic evidence had to be altered (to cover-up a conspiracy), then this posterior defect was an indispensable target for alteration. The remainder of this essay is a first-person account of our mutual attempts to decipher this paradox of JFK s posterior skull especially as seen in the Zapruder film. A BRIEF HISTORY OF OUR 35MM DUPLICATE NEGATIVE OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM (SW) In 2008, my partner (and husband), Thom Whitehead, sold our startup editing company to Deluxe Film Labs. Thom was hired to oversee their newly created editorial department in Burbank, and I chose a new path. After spending over twenty years in sales and development in the post-production industry, I was ready for a new challenge. I have been interested in the JFK assassination history for decades. In 1978, I spent a memorable college semester in Washington, D.C., working as a congressional intern and studying the activities of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). One of the key subjects that piqued my interest was the iconic Zapruder film. In 2008, I rekindled my interest and began to read about the film with a renewed vigor. I was surprised to discover there were serious concerns about its authenticity. Most notably, there had never been a truly independent, forensic, imaging study---one that was not connected to a government or private entity. It suddenly dawned on me that I might have a golden opportunity to delve deeper into the film imagery by utilizing the resources of Deluxe Labs92--one of the largest and most prestigious professional film labs in history. We knew they would allow us to use any/all of their state-of-the-art film and digital technology. Additionally, considering that Thom and I had spent years working with the top film restoration and post-production experts in the world, I felt confident we would be able to solicit their professional, unbiased guidance. With the absolute best technology and talent available at the time, all we needed was the best possible film element to study. In November 2008, we purchased a 35mm duplicate negative (dupe neg) of the "forensic version' of the Zapruder "camera original" 8 mm film housed at NARA. It is a US government authorized and certified, third generation film copy. To our surprise, and to the best of our knowledge (as of 2018), it is the only third generation 35mm dupe neg acquired for the purpose of an independent, expert evaluation since NARA made such elements available to the public in 2003. The following is a brief timeline of the steps I had to take to acquire our 35 mm dupe neg from NARA. It took eight months, and they certainly did not make it convenient, or cost effective in 2008. I hope they have simplified the process since then. According to NARA, the film element used to complete my transfer was their 35mm Intermediate (or "reproduction") copy, which is an interpositive,97 silent, color film descended from the direct blow-up 35mm Internegative. NARA considered it to be a "preservation master." At that time, they offered two versions to the public: (1) a "forensic” version--a 35mm, direct optical blow-up Internegative (without any image improvement) from Zapruder's 8mm camera "original,"98 and (2) a “de-scratched" version--a 35mm film element that has been "cleaned up" to look visually appealing. The latter effectively removes dirt and scratches via "a diffused light source in analog printing instead of using a traditional wet-gate method.99 We chose the forensic version because we wanted to work with unadulterated images--as close to the "original" as possible--where nothing had been done to enhance or improve them in any way. TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF OUR 6K SCANS (SW) We scanned our 35mm dupe neg directly to 6k files using a Northlight film scanner. At the time, the Northlight scanner was instrumental in the production of Hollywood films and was considered state-of-the-art technology in post­ production.100 It created digital files from the optical image of a film. Great care was accorded to this process in a post-production environment because the introduction of any artifacts or discontinuities could ruin the day for a film director or director of photography. The digital file that is created must replicate exactly the image on the film and reveal all the information present on each film frame. Due to the relatively small size of the original 8mm Zapruder film (when viewing the entire 35 mm frame on the dupe neg) we decided to scan at Northlight’s maximum available scan size of 6k. The 6k refers to a size of 6144 x 4668 pixels with an effective size of 114.7 Mb of digital data per frame. To put this into perspective, a home HDTV only presents 1920 x 1080 pixels with about 9.7 Mb per frame. Therefore, our scans have more than ten times the resolution and data size as an HD television image. This additional resolution allowed us to electronically zoom into the image without any apparent loss of detail or fidelity. Finally, we could see down to the grain of the 8mm film with complete sharpness and detail--including all of the inter-sprocket and edge areas. As far as we know, the Zapruder film had never been reproduced or studied at this level of digital resolution. Another important aspect of our scanning process was the use of logarithmic color space, rather than linear color space. This is critical because the use of logarithmic color allows all the color information of the image to be present in the scans, preserving all of the highlight and shadow information. Linear color is what we are accustomed to seeing on TV and computer screens. Although linear color looks correct/normal and lifelike to our eyes, very bright and dark areas of the image must be "clipped" in order to make the majority of the image appear correctly. Logarithmic color, although looking to the untrained eye as "muddy" or "flat," is actually the best way to retain all of the color information in the film. Finally we used the film industry standard "DPX" (Digital Picture eXchange)101 format to allow easy transfers between various professional workstations. One of the state-of-the-art workstations we continue to use is an Autodesk product called Smoke.102 THE MPI IMAGES (DM)103 In 1997 with Douglas Home of the ARRB staff serving as a neutral observer, MPI's designated film contractor, Mccrone Associates, photographed each frame of the extant Zapruder film at the NARA, using large format (4 x 5 inch) Kodak 6121 color positive transparency duplicating film. Those MPI transparencies constituted first generation copies of each frame in the extant film. The extant film is considered to be generation zero. This MPI process had its own shortcomings104 but following their creation these images should have been the best available to the public. (Later, MPI digitized, manipulated, and reassembled the in1ages as a motion picture, creating a product titled "Image of an Assassination" on both VHS tape and DVD, which has been available for purchase by the public since 1998.) The so-called “MPI transparencies" created by McCrone associates were physically transferred to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas in January of 2000. This followed the donation and legal transfer of the film's copyright, and the LMH Company's film elements, from LMH Co. to the Museum in December of 1999. From 2000 through 2009, upon appropriate request, these MPI transparencies--true first-generation copies (of the extant film), in large format-were available for public viewing at the Museum. INSIDE THE ARRB, A 5-VOLUME MASTERPIECE BY DOUGLAS HORNE (DM) Appearing in late November 2009, this five-volume encyclopedic work by a former staff member of the ARRB contained images of several Zapruder frames--based on Wilkinson's 6k scans. In particular, Figure 88 in Volume I (an image of Z-317) showed a black geometric patch over the back of JFK's head. (See the image below.) Even in the low-resolution format of a paperback, its borders were preternaturally sharp and well defined, far more than would be expected of a normal shadow. Several months before publication of his book, Home advised me that he planned to visit Thom and Sydney in Los Angeles, so in August 2009, he invited me to their joint viewing.105 While in the film laboratory for several hours, they explained their 6k scans to us. Horne had also viewed them on a prior occasion with three Hollywood professionals. I was particularly fascinated by how unnatural the black patch looked: • After frame Z-313, this area was clearly darker than before Z-313; before Z-313, JFK's hair looked auburn. • The edges of the patch were unnaturally sharp. • Before and after frame Z-313, the back of Connally's head (in a similar shadow as JFK's head) did not show anything like a black patch. SYDNEY SEES THE MPI TRANSPARENCIES AT THE SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM (SW) On Friday, November 20 2009, during the weekend of the annual JFK symposium meetings, David Mantik and I met for an appointment at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. I was very excited because we were going to view the first generation Ektachrome transparencies created by MPI in 1997. We were told they were made directly from Zapruder's 8mm camera "original," which meant they were first generation and should have been sharper than our 35mm dupe neg (third generation). According to the Museum, these MPI transparencies were included in a deed of gift from the Zapruder family in December of 1999, along with the copyright to the Zapruder film (and other important Zapruder film elements) from Time-Life, Inc. My primary goal was to determine if the MPI transparencies showed the same anomalies seen on our scans. I was prepared for either outcome. David and I were given a loupe and light box to carefully look at each transparency. Words cannot describe how stunned I was when I viewed the head shot, frame Z-313, and the frames immediately following. The resolution was beyond anything I expected. Especially, in frames Z-317, Z-321, Z-323, Z-335 and Z-337, the solid, black' patch" that is clearly seen on our 6k scans--covering the right rear area of JFK's head--was even more egregious on the MPI transparencies. It was all I could do to muzzle my emotions. There was no doubt the MPI transparencies corroborated the obvious anomalies seen on our scans. Most importantly, they clearly depicted what should be on the extant Zapruder film housed at NARA. DAVID REPORTS ON THE SAME VISIT (WITH SYDNEY) IN 2009 (DM) While Gary Mack sat nearby, my first impression was the same as Sydney's--the resolution and color were so incredible that I felt as if I were seeing these frames for the very first time. But the greatest emotional impact came on seeing the black patch in Z-317. It was so blatant, so childishly done, that I almost laughed aloud. Whether I did or not is in some doubt, but I retain an image of clapping my hand over my mouth to prevent such a laugh.106 I was also easily able to verify the other abnormalities that Home had reported in his book, published just a week later in November 2009. SYDNEY RETURNS TO THE MUSEUM IN 2010 (SW) The following year, in November 2010, I returned to the newly finished Sixth Floor Museum reading room in order to view the same MPI transparencies. Thom was able to join me and I was excited to show him the stunning clarity of the back of JFK's head i.e., the "black patch," on the frames we had been studying for months. This time, I was definitely not prepared for what I saw when I looked through the loupe. Not only were the transparencies much larger in size physically, than the ones I had viewed the previous year with David, but none of them were as clear and sharp. Not even close. Most importantly, and suspiciously, the flagrant image of the black "patch" was gone. Instead, the back of JFK s head appeared to show a natural shadow--what Thom called "fuzzied up"--without the straight and well-demarcated edges I had seen in 2009. We were both stunned. Furthermore the black patch was not nearly so obvious in this supposed first generation copy as it was in our third generation 6k copy. That made no sense whatever to me. Despite being assured by the museum they were the same transparencies that David and I saw the previous year, there is absolutely no doubt that they were not. To this day, Thom and I wonder if those transparencies had been altered. INTO THE FRAY: DAVID RETURNS TO THE MUSEUM IN 2012 (DM) Shortly after her 2010 visit to the Museum, Sydney telephoned me, sounding anguished and upset. She described the overwhelming shock caused by her most recent visit. I assured her that I stood by the impressions we had both received in 2009, particularly of the black patch. I promised to visit again--to assess her most recent impressions. During this several-year hiatus (2009-2012) at least two other individuals visited the Museum and saw no black patch. The Museum will not disclose the names of any visitors, but Sydney had met retired Kodak film chemist Roland Zavada outside the viewing room on that same day in 2010. (Zavada had lectured at a JFK symposium that day.107) And author Josiah Thompson reported on his visit, which occurred at about that same time--if not the same day. My second opportunity finally arrived during the annual JFK symposia meetings in November 2012. On the chance that the black patch might re-appear I asked author Peter Jaruley to accompany me on November 16, so that he could serve as another witness. (Sydney was not in Dallas at the time.) The verdict came quickly-the patch in Z-317, and conspicuously present in other frames such as Z- 321 and Z-323, had vanished. Neither Peter nor I saw it. The back of JFK's head appeared little different from all those images I had seen before (excepting for Sydney's 6k images). The powerful emotional response of 2009 did not recur. Furthermore, the back of JFK's head did not show the patently obvious patch I had seen on Sydney's 6k scans. Unlike Sydney, I did not perceive the transparencies I viewed in 2012 to be larger in size than those I viewed in 2009; my impression is that they were simply displayed differently, i.e., in different mountings. The important thing is that we both noted that the anomalies present in 2009 had disappeared in the MPI transparencies we viewed in 2010 and 2012. Before leaving the Museum, I pointedly asked Megan Bryant (Gary Mack was absent) if these were the same images that she had shown me in 2009. She claimed they were. MPI SUMMARY (SW and DM) It is most likely that the images shown to Josiah Thompson and Roland Zavada were the same ones that Sydney and Thom saw in 2010 and that David saw in 2012. If so, then neither of these men has ever viewed the images that Sydney and David saw together at the Museum in 2009. It would have been most enlightening if either Thompson or Zavada could have joined us in 2009. Of course, the relationship between the release date of Horne's book (late November 2009), and our Museum visit in late November 2009 is most peculiar. Our 2009 visit had occurred about one week before the release of Horne's book! In retrospect, this timing appears noteworthy (if not ominous): Was the Museum caught off guard by our visit? Was the Museum's staff oblivious to the purpose of our visit-possibly because they were still unacquainted with Sydney and Thom's research and because they had not yet seen Figure 88 (Z-317) in Horne's book? Even more to the point: It is our impression that we were the first to see these MPI images at the Museum. What strikes both of us as most anomalous is the wonderful clarity of Sydney's 6k scans--which are only a third generation--versus the (currently) less impressive "first generation" MPI images now housed at the Museum (but present only after our 2009 visit). This discrepancy makes no sense to either of us. It would be most useful if Sydney's 6k scans could be taken into the Museum viewing room to be compared side by side with the MPI images, but that is not allowed. Nor were we permitted to record any images of the MPI transparencies, either via camera or scanner--so we have only our memories. A POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE -- THE TIME/LIFE TRANSPARENCIES (DM) The Time-Life transparencies might resolve this paradox. Josiah Thompson had worked with these images and had photographed them while working for LIFE magazine. He used them as models for the sketches in his book, Six Seconds in Dallas. He was kind enough to loan these negatives to me, which I converted into prints. Oddly, Z-317 is missing from my set,108 although Thompson has posted an image of Z-317 online, presumably from his own set. The other images in my Thompson set do not show an obvious black patch. On January 26, 2000, the Dallas Morning News published an article, "Zapruders Donate JFK Film, Rights," written by reporter Mark Wrolstad, who stated: The article notes that Mack was actually (contemporaneously) examining these images--not that he expected to do so at a later time. Mack also stated: Now, however, we are left to wonder: Had Wrolstad merely invented this story?109 We are confronted with this bizarre question because the Museum (see e­ mail below) explains what supposedly happened: "From [a] misunderstanding, the Museum issued an inaccurate press release on January 25, 2000." Curiously, Mark Wrolstad has not responded to Doug Horne's two written attempts in 2011 to clarify this critical misunderstanding. So here is the problem: the Museum now claims that they never received the 1963/1964 Time/Life transparencies--and also that they don't know where they are now. Here are responses that I received from Megan Bryant (at the Museum). It is my impression that the following statements are for public consumption. DM: So today no one knows where these Time/Life transparencies are located. On April 10, 1997, Doug Home saw a large stack of 4 x 5-inch color positive transparencies of the Zapruder film (with each frame surrounded by a black border) in the office of Jamie Silverberg,110 while working for the ARRB. The transparencies sighted by Doug Home in 1997 were not on Silverberg's typed inventory list of film elements and were only produced after persistent inquiries by Home about their possible existence. But now none of these men--not Home, not Zavada, not Thompson, nor even Gary Mack--can point to their location. 111 Before surrendering, I wanted to ascertain whether or not the Time/Life transparencies had, after all, been donated to the Museum. So, I asked the Museum one last question: Could I see the Deed of Gift (circa December 30, 1999) or the complete inventory (or catalog), which was probably prepared in 2000-or any copies of these two items? The Museum, however, responded that these were private documents and were therefore not available for my review-nor could I see copies! CONCLUSIONS (DM and SW) Even if both of us had suddenly lost our senses (oddly at the same moment) in 2009 Sydney's 6k scans still exist--and so does the quite obvious "Mask of Death" in Z-317. Furthermore, anyone can still purchase their own copy via NARA. To our knowledge, at least two other documentarians have done so. Sydney has graciously shown her 6k scans to friend and foe alike. Alarmingly some foes have unexpectedly declined to view them saying that they already know what they will see! This reminds us of Galileo's enemies, who likewise refused to look through his telescope,112 but instead chose to believe that theological reasoning, based on texts of Scripture (a la the Warren Report), was the only road to reality. In effect, the truth was out there, but they preferred blindfolds. In short, this mindset persists today--even though we oxymoronically (and self­ referentially) label ourselves as Homo sapiens. ------------------------------------------------------- WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? Douglas Horne 113 What is at stake here is nothing less than historical truth. When an institution that presents itself as a museum--purportedly a guardian of history-­ replaces vital film evidence of President Kennedy's assassination (which apparently contained prima facie evidence of that film's blatant alteration) with substitute evidence (in which the blatant alterations have disappeared), a willful attempt has been made to alter history. The authentic MPI transparencies were available to the public from 2000 until late 2009, a long interval during which the museum's staff was apparently oblivious to what they owned. Following the publication of my five-volume set, Inside the ARRB, in late November of 2009, just one week after David Mantik and Sydney Wilkinson examined the MPI transparencies, the public (and presumably key members of the Museum's staff) awoke to what was at stake here. Here is what likely triggered this aggressive Museum response: Just prior to publication, I had added an addendum to my Zapruder film chapter about the anomalies discovered in Sydney Wilkinson's scans and had actually included an image of Z-317 in my book, as well. (See this image below.) Was the Sixth Floor Museum, the unapologetic and ardent defender of the Warren Commission's conclusions (that a lone malcontent murdered President Kennedy), going to keep on display powerful evidence of the alteration of the single most important assassination record, the Zapruder film? This was the operative question after my book was published. The implications of the obvious alterations found in the 6k scans, and in the MPI transparencies in 2009 were clear: the true exit wound on President Kennedy's head (in the right rear, just where the Parkland Hospital treatment staff had reported it) had been intentionally obscured in the Zapruder film (likely during 1963), in an attempt to hide evidence of crossfire in Dealey Plaza and therefore of conspiracy. (An exit wound in the rear of JFK's head pointed to a fatal shot from the front and therefore multiple shooters, i.e., conspiracy.) Powerful evidence that the Zapruder film had been altered for the purpose of hiding this exit wound-anomalies in the film that provided virtual proof of the Zapruder film's alteration-would also constitute evidence of a cover-up of major proportions soon after the assassination occurred, something almost as disturbing as the assassination itself. Restating the question above, “Was this institution, the Sixth Floor Museum, willing to display powerful evidence that would invalidate the Museum's own conclusions about the assassination, or would they instead abandon the interests of historical truth and pursue their own longstanding bias?" In 2010 and in 2012 Sydney Wilkinson and David Mantik received the answer to this question. The events described in this essay call into serious question the true purpose of the Museum, and cause us to ask "Is the Museum a repository of truth, or an agent of political and historical spin, i.e., a mere disseminator of propaganda?" Two specific Museum employees (Gary Mack114 and Megan Bryant) were in charge of the Museum's film holdings and were in responsible positions when the MPI transparencies and other film elements from the LMH Co. were received in January of 2000 (as evidenced by the Mark Wrolstad article in the Dallas Morning News). Those same two employees were present in 2009 when Sydney and David both observed the same anomalies in the MPI transparencies that were present in the 6k scans. In 2010 and 2012, while Gary Mack apparently no longer felt a need to be present, after what I shall call the "big switch," Megan Bryant was again present. Is it truly plausible that Gary Mack 'misunderstood' the contents of the Deed of Gift to the Sixth Floor Museum from the LMH Company, in addition to "misinterpreting" a verbal comment from Zapruder lawyer, Jamie Silverberg and then carelessly released an inaccurate press release? Sadly, it's unlikely we will ever know. This release had been exhibited on the Sixth Floor Museum website until Doug Home began questioning Mark Wrolstad in 2011 and David Mantik began corresponding with Megan Bryant about it in 2012. What do the events described above say about these two Sixth Floor Museum employees and their integrity? As each reader answers to this question for himself, keep in mind that the best evidence outside of NARA that corroborated the stunning image content in the 6k scans has now disappeared. It has been switched out. We don't know who switched if out, but we certainly know where the switch took place. Meanwhile, this substitute evidence has been shown to two of the foremost defenders of the Zapruder films authenticity: Roland Zavada and Josiah Thompson. And the sanitized images in the substitute MPI transparencies have reinforced the longstanding opinions of these two men-namely, that the film has not been altered. Now both Thompson and Zavada are more certain than ever, based on their viewing of the altered MPI transparencies, that nothing is amiss with the Zapruder film. A former high-level official at Archives II in College Park, Maryland (Leslie Waffen) informed Sydney Wilkinson (circa 2008) that the extant film in cold storage "would never be removed from the freezer again" and there it sits today, further deteriorating with the passage of time. In view of the events described above this policy must change. There is only one way to definitively determine the authenticity of the 6k scans commissioned by Sydney Wilkinson and studied by so many in the Hollywood film industry: compare the 6k scans with the extant film at NARA. A travesty has occurred in Dallas, and it has historical repercussions. The extant 8mm Zapruder film at NARA must be compared to both the 6k scans of the 35mm dupe negative in Hollywood and with the MPI transparencies (currently available for viewing) at the Sixth Floor Museum. Sydney and David and I are not afraid to conduct this test--in fact, we insist on it. The American people should insist on it. Let's do the three-way comparison, with ample witnesses present, movie cameras running, and let the chips fall where they may. The American people deserve to know their true history not a falsified story. END

Your speculations about how the CIA should have dealt with the situation aside, obviously they didn't decide to implement the Allen Lowe strategy of the future. The reality is simply the reality and you have no choice but to accept it as "what is" as opposed to what you feel should have been, or would have been. Coulda, woulda shoulda is just nonsense speculation. Deal with it.

Your challenge that Roger "cite one source - ANY SOURCE - who cited the Zapruder in the period between the assassination and the reveal on Geraldo, or who said it was incriminating or urgent to release it" is easily satisfied. There were many books and articles prior to the 1975 showing of the Zapruder film on Geraldo Rivera's Good Night America show which were critical of the lack of public availability of the film and called for a change in that status quo, but the one example I am going to provide you was likely the most well publicized of all of them: "Six Seconds in Dallas" by Josiah Thompson, published in 1967, was a best seller not just in the United States but also internationally. The book gained widespread acclaim for its thorough investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, particularly focusing on the events that took place in Dealey Plaza in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Thompson's meticulous research and attention to detail, as well as his background as a former professor of philosophy and investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, added credibility to his work. The book presented a critical analysis of the Warren Commission's report on the assassination and raised questions about the official narrative of the events surrounding Kennedy's death. "Six Seconds in Dallas" was well-received by both critics and readers for its compelling narrative, insightful commentary, and groundbreaking investigative work. It shed new light on the assassination and sparked further interest in the case, contributing to the ongoing debate and conspiracy theories surrounding Kennedy's death. Overall, the book's commercial success and critical acclaim solidified its status as a best seller and established Josiah Thompson as a prominent figure in the JFK assassination research community. The exact total number of copies of "Six Seconds in Dallas" by Josiah Thompson that have been sold is not publicly available. However, the book was an immediate best seller, has been in print for over five decades, and has maintained a steady readership, making it one of the enduring classics in the field of Kennedy assassination research. It has been through multiple editions and reprints, both in the United States and internationally, indicating a significant level of popularity and ongoing interest in the subject matter. While the specific sales figures may not be available, the book's status as a best seller and its longevity in the marketplace suggest that it has sold a substantial number of copies over the years. The book commenced with "A Note From The Publisher," Bernard Geis, which highlighted and underscored the problems Josiah Thompson encountered due to the tight controls exercised over the Zapruder film by Life, and his problems were just beginning at that point because Time, Inc. sued Thompson and his publisher for infringement of copyright because of Zapruder frames sketched in the book. A federal court gave summary judgment to Thompson and his publisher ten months later in a landmark decision stressing fair use rights. "Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Assoc., 293 F. Supp. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)" https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/293/130/1982339/ Clearly, the CIA Operation Mockingbird captured Time/Life publication attempted to suppress the Zapruder film and everything about it, just as the CIA front, The Sixth Floor Museum, continues to do today by threatening litigation against all who attempt to use the film in virtually every context.

I agree that Sandy Larsen should be commended for his performance as an Administrator for this forum, both with regard to some recent challenging situations and with regard to his overall contributions to the smooth functioning of the forum in general. But much more importantly, and with regard to some insinuations that have been made that Sandy has demonstrated favoritism toward me, and in the same context bias toward others (and even worse has been the implied allegation that Sandy has been specifically colluding with me in metering out sanctions against others for rule violations), I want to make it perfectly clear that there was no communication whatsoever between Sandy and I concerning his administrative duties -- or anything else -- throughout the recent events, much less anything that could be characterized as "collusion," and he also in the same context took administrative action adverse to me by advising me that it is a rule violation to accuse others of being "a liar." The difference in outcomes came down to the fact that I immediately revised my posts to remedy the violations, and others did not. Additionally, I get the impression that some other members of the forum (and perhaps some Administrators as well) are under the impression that Sandy and I adhere to identical positions on the issues debated on these threads, and that Sandy uses his position as an Administrator in support of our shared views, as well as to throttle the opposing views of others. But I am here to tell you that Sandy and I do not see eye to eye on every issue, and that in fact there have been issues on which Sandy and I have fiercely disagreed. Sandy is nobody's dupe as far as I have seen, and he has afforded me no special treatment, nor have I requested any special treatment from him. What Sandy and I do evidently agree about is that forum members should not be free to make blatant factual misrepresentations of the historical record without being able to provide evidentiary support for their positions -- particularly not misrepresentations that are inherently defamatory to witnesses and researchers -- and that in the event such positions are taken it should be made clear by the forum member that the position is an opinion rather than a fact. Had those who were suspended conducted themselves in such a manner, all of the recent conflict and associated suspensions would have been avoided, and in my humble opinion, making such distinctions is simply the hallmark of responsible advocacy and research. Nobody should be entitled to their own facts, and extraordinary claims should be supported by verifiable evidence.

Just in case you were unaware, with regard to the earliest reports of the Parkland trauma team and support personnel (which constitute the testimony with the greatest probative value and evidentiary weight), something that is not very well known is that very meticulously detailed and comprehensive first and second day medical reports were made by the Parkland Hospital medical personnel who were involved in the resuscitation attempts on President Kennedy, and were initially classified "top secret," and then were published in Volume 20 of the Warren Commission's 26 volumes as "the Price Exhibits," which you can access via the following link: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0087b.htm -- along with their TOP SECRET stamps. These reports prove to a scientific certainty both that the Parkland physicians made no surgical incisons anywhere on JFK's head whatsoever, and that NONE of the Parkland medical personnel observed the damage we see on the top of JFK's head in the autopsy photographs, nor the huge, cavernous forehead wound that is depicted by the extant Zapruder film. The obvious implication of these reports, of course, is that the huge, cavernous wound in JFK's forehead that we see in the following stills of the extant "original" Zapruder film -- which looks to me like it was calculated to appear to be about the size of a cantaloupe -- is entirely the product of what Dino Brugioni called "photographic fakery": And I'm sure you are aware of the first day Admission Notes -- which have the greatest probative value and evidentiary weight out of all of the medical evidence -- that were filed by Drs. Kemp Clark, Charles Carrico, Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, Robert McClelland and Marion Jenkins immediately after their efforts to resuscitate President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. None of these reports support the existence of the frontal head wound depicted by the fraudulent Zapruder film imagery either: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392: APPENDIX VIII - MEDICAL REPORTS FROM DOCTORS AT PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DALLAS, TEXAS: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm Summary (By Dr. Kemp Clark) The President arrived at the Emergency Room at 12:43 P. M., the 22nd of November, 1963. He was in the back seat of his limousine. Governor Connally of Texas was also in this car. The first physician to see the President was Dr. James Carrico, a Resident in General Surgery. Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow, agenal respiratory efforts. He could hear a heartbeat but found no pulse or blood pressure to be present. Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding. Dr. Carrico inserted a cuffed endotracheal tube. While doing so, he noted a ragged wound of the trachea immediately below the larynx. At this time, Dr. Malcolm Perry, Attending Surgeon, Dr. Charles Baxter, Attending Surgeon, and Dr. Ronald Jones, another Resident in General Surgery, arrived. Immediately thereafter, Dr. M. T. Jenkins, Director of the Department of Anesthesia, and Doctors Giesecke and Hunt, two other Staff Anesthesiologists, arrived. The endotracheal tube had been connected to a Bennett respirator to assist the President's breathing. An Anesthesia machine was substituted for this by Dr. Jenkins. Only 100% oxygen was administered. A cutdown was performed in the right ankle, and a polyethylene catheter inserted in the vein. An infusion of lactated Ringer's solution was begun. Blood was drawn for type and crossmatch, but unmatched type "O" RH negative blood was immediately obtained and begun. Hydrocortisone 300 mgms was added to the intravenous fluids. Dr. Robert McClelland, Attending Surgeon, arrived to help in the President's care. Doctors Perry, Baxter, and McClelland began a tracheostomy, as considerable quantities of blood were present from the President's oral pharynx. At this time, Dr. Paul Peters, Attending Urological Surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark, Director of Neurological Surgery arrived. Because of the lacerated trachea, anterior chest tubes were place in both pleural spaces. These were connected to sealed underwater drainage. Neurological examination revealed the President's pupils to be widely dialted and fixed to light. His eyes were divergent, being deviated outward; a skew deviation from the horizontal was present. Not deep tendon reflexes or spontaneous movements were found. There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. 1500 cc. of blood were estimated on the drapes and floor of the Emergency Operating Room. There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. Further examination was not possible as cardiac arrest occurred at this point. Closed chest cardiac massage was begun by Dr. Clark. A pulse palpable in both the carotid and femoral arteries was obtained. Dr. Perry relieved on the cardiac massage while a cardiotachioscope was connected. Dr. Fouad Bashour, Attending Physician, arrived as this was being connected. There was electrical silence of the President's heart. President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300 hours by Dr. Clark Kemp Clark, M. D. Director Service of Neurological Surgery KC:aa cc to Dean's Office, Southwestern Medical School cc to Medical Records, Parkland Memorial Hospital ______________________________________________________________________________________ PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE J. F. KENNEDY DATE AND HOUR 11/22/63 1620 DOCTOR: Carrico When patient entered Emergency room on ambulance carriage had slow agonal respiratory efforts and scant cardiac beats by auscultation. Two external wounds were noted. One small penetrating wound of ant. neck in lower 1/3. The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing. No pulse or blood pressure were present. Pupils were dilated and fixed. A cuffed endotracheal tube was inserted and through the laryngoscope a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx. The tube was passed past the laceration and the cuff inflated. Respiration using the resp assistor on auto-matic were instituted. Concurrently an IV infusion of lactated Ringer solution was begun via catheter placed in right leg and blood was drawn for type and crossmatch. Type O Rh negative blood was obtained as well as hydrocortisone. In view of tracheal injury and decreased BS an tracheostomy was performed by Dr. Perry and Bilat. chest tubes inserted. A 2nd bld infusion was begun in left arm. In addition Dr. Jenkins began resp with anethesia machine, cardiac monitor, and stimulator attached. Solu cortef IV given (300mg), attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted. Despite these measures as well as external cardiac massage, BP never returned and EKG evidence of cardiac activity was never obtained. Charles J. Carrico M.D. PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE J. F. KENNEDY DATE AND HOUR 22 Nov 1963 DOCTOR: PERRY Staff Note At the time of initial examination, the pt. was noted as non-responsive. The eyes were deviated and the pupils were dilated. A considerable quantity of blood was noted on the patient, the carriage and the floor. A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck, in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted, exposing severely lacerated brain. Brain tissue was noted in the blood at the head of the carriage. Pulse or heartbeat were not detectable but slow spasmodic respiration was noted. An endotracheal tube was in place and respiration was being assisted. An intravenous infusion was being placed in the leg. At this point I noted that respiration was ineffective and while additional venisections were done to administer fluids and blood, a tracheostomy was effected. A right lateral injury to the trachea was noted. The tracheostomy tube was put in place and the cuff inflated and respiration assisted. Closed chest cardiac massage was instituted after placement of sealed drainage chest tubes, but without benefit. Electrocardiographic evaluation revealed that no detectable electrical activity existed in the heart. Resuscitation attempts were abandoned after the team of physicians determined that the patient had expired. Malcolm O. Perry, M.D. 1630 hr 22 Nov 1963 PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR NOV 22, 1963 DOCTOR: BAXTER Note of Attendance to President Kennedy. I was contacted at approx 12:40 that the President was on the way to the emergency room having been shot. On arrival there, I found an endotracheal tube in place with assisted respirations, a left chest tube being inserted and cut downs going in one leg and in the left arm. The President had a wound in the mid-line of the neck. On first observation of the remaining wounds the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table, with .extensive lacerations and contusions. The pupils were fixed and deviated lateral and dilated. No pulse was detectable and respirations were (as noted) being supplied. A tracheotomy was performed by Dr. Perry and I and a chest tube inserted into the right chest (2nd intercostal space anteriorally). Meanwhile, 2 pts of O neg blood were administered by pump without response. When all of these measures were complete, no heart beat could be detected. Close chest message was performed until a cardioscope could be attached which revealed no cardiac activity was obtained. Due to the excessive and irreparable brain damage which was lethal, no further attempt to resuscitate the heart was made. Charles R. Baxter M.D. Associate Prof of Surgery Southwestern Medical School PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE JOHN F. KENNEDY DATE AND HOUR 22 Nov 1963 DOCTOR: [KEMP CLARK] 12:20pm to 13:00 hrs Called by EOR while standing in (illegible) Laboratory at SWMS. Told that the President had been shot. I arrived at the EOR at 1220 - 1225 and .The President was bleeding profusely from the back of the head. There was a large (3 x 3cm) amount of cerebral tissue present on the cart. There was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also. A tracheostomy was being performed by Drs. Perry, Baxter and McClelland. Exam of the President showed that an endotracheal tube was in place and respiratory assistance was being given by Dr. Akins and Jenkins. The pupils were dilated, fixed to light and his eyes were deviated outward and the right one downward as as well . The trach was completed and I adjusted the endotracheal tube a little bit. Blood was present in the oral pharynx. Suction was used to remove this. Levine Catheter was passed into the stomach at this time. He was (illegible) that I (illegible) no carotid pulse. I immediately began closed chest massage. A pulse was obtained at the carotid and femoral pulse levels. Dr. Perry then took over the cardiac massage so I could evaluate the head wound. There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the skull appeared gone at brief examination . The previously described lacerated brain was present. By this time an EKG was hooked up. There was no electrical activity of the heart and no respiratory effort - He was pronounced dead at 1300 hrs by me. W. Kemp Clark 22 Nov 1963 1615 hrs - PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone. Robert N. McClelland M.D. Asst. Prof. of Surgery Southwestern Med. School of Univ of Tex. Dallas, Texas PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: BASHOUR Statement Regarding Assassination of the President of the U.S.A., President Kennedy. At 12:50 PM, we were called from the 1st floor of Parkland Hospital and told that President Kennedy was shot. Dr. D ?? and myself went to the emergency room of Parkland. Upon examination, the President had no pulsation, no heartbeat, no blood pressure. The oscilloscope showed a complete standstill. The president was declared dead at 12:55 P.M. F. Bashour M.D. Associate Professor of Cardiology Southwestern Medical School Dallas, Texas. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL SCHOOL DALLAS November 22, 1963 1630 To: Mr. C.J. Price, Administrator Parkland Memorial Hospital From: M.T. Jenkins, M.D., Professor and Chairman Department of Anesthesiology Subject: Statement concerning resusciative efforts for President John F. Kennedy Upon receiving a stat alarm that this distinguished patient was being brought to the emergency room at Parkland Memorial Hospital, I dispatched Doctors A . H. Giesecke and Jackie H. Hunt with an anesthesia machine and resuscitative equipment to the major surgical emergency room area, and I ran down the stairs . On my arrival in the emergency operating room at approximately 1230 I found that Doctors Carrico and/or Delaney had begun resuscitative efforts by introducing an orotracheal tube, connecting it for controlled ventilation to a Bennett intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus . Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage . Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation. For better control of artificial ventilation, I exchanged the intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus for an anesthesia machine and continued artificial ventilation . Doctors Gene Akin and A . H. Giesecke assisted with the respiratory problems incident to changing from the orotracheal tube to a tracheostomy tube, and Doctors Hunt and Giesecke connected a cardioscope to determine cardiac activity. During the progress of these activities, the emergency room cart was elevated at the feet in order to provide a Trendelenburg position, a venous cutdown was performed on the right saphenous vein, and additional fluids were begun in a vein in the left forearm while blood was ordered from the blood bank . All of these activities were completed by approximately 1245, at which time external cardiac massage was still being carried out effectively by Doctor Clark as judged by a palpable peripheral pulse. Despite these measures there was no electrocardiographic evidence of cardiac activity . These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out attention was turned to all other evidences of injury . There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. There were also fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart . With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage . It is my personal feeling that all methods of resuscitation were instituted expeditiously and efficiently . However, this cranial and intracranial damage was of such magnitude as to cause the irreversible damage . President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300 . Sincerely, /s/ M. T. Jenkins M. T. Jenkins, M.D . And @Denny Zartman, I sure would be interested in seeing that footage of O'Connor and Jenkins commenting about the autopsy photographs that you have described. Do you know if it is posted anywhere online?

I certainly feel compassion for Mr. Speer and his battle with cancer, and it is of course a possibility that his medications and treatment play some role in this, but in the thick and thin of confronting him with blatant contradictions between the factual record concerning the JFK assassination -- most particularly JFK's large occipital-parietal head wound, and the witnesses that reported it -- Speer's posture comes off as being one of a great deal of hubris and stubbornness, which is compounded by something that seems suggestive -- at least it does to me -- of what appears to be something along the lines of a martyr complex or a messiah complex. I don't expect anybody to blindly accept that based upon my say so alone, or for that matter anything that I say about the JFK assassination and associated witnesses and researchers, just as I do not accept anything that anybody else says based on their say so alone. I present evidence in support of my claims, and I assess the claims of others based upon the substantiating evidence that they present, and it has been this that has been the basis of the conflict between Mr. Speer and I. But I will say this for Mr. Speer, he has done an enormous amount of work on his website, and I have learned numerous things from the research that he has done. I have no desire to shut him up or to have him banished from this or any other platform, but I do want the countervailing evidence to his positions to be available to other researchers, particularly those who are new and struggling to obtain an accurate understanding of the factual record. I am at my core a believer in free speech, and believe that the remedy to inaccurate speech and information is more speech and accurate information. I mentioned above "a martyr complex or a messiah complex" because of Speer's repeated assertions that the dirty rotten "alterationists" are conspiring to have him banished from the research community, a narrative he uses as a blunt force instrument in an apparent effort to discredit his adversaries, and to deflect attention from his misrepresentations of the factual record. In the remainder of this post I am going to present evidence of a recent example in which Speer made such an attempt to do exactly that, as well as to demonstrate my response, which was to present evidence from the factual record calculated to expose exactly what Mr. Speer is actually doing. When, on May 5, 2024, Sandy Larsen -- another truth-teller who has diligently opposed Mr. Speer's misrepresentations about the medical evidence for many years --noted that he had seen me present evidence directly proving Speer wrong just to see Speer double down on the position that had just been proven wrong, Mr. Speer responded by flat out denying, without presenting any evidence whatsoever, that this was true, and went on to attack Sandy as one less knowledgeable than himself who is bent on having Speer banished because Speer dares to disagree with his "whimsical and fantastical conclusions regarding a supposedly serious matter," as follows: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30407-favorite-author-jim-dieugenio-favorite-researcher-pat-speer/?do=findComment&comment=535234 The same day, I responded to Mr. Speer's post as follows: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30407-favorite-author-jim-dieugenio-favorite-researcher-pat-speer/?do=findComment&comment=535245 "Mr. Speer: Is the problem you complain of that there is a massive, coordinated conspiracy against you, or that you are being consistently called out on your factual misrepresentations and mythmaking? The post of yours to which this is a response is a prime example: You cite John Simkin as somebody who allegedly embraced a non-confrontational spirit, and yet the truth is that John Simkin consistently confronted forum members about their factual misrepresentations (if you wish to dispute this fact, I will be happy to present you with a long list of examples). To determine whether you are such a diplomat who has been so abused by JFK "buffs," as you seem to be implying, let us review the history to determine whether the problem is instead that you constantly attempt to feed your fellow researchers blatantly false factual misrepresentations calculated to mislead us as if you think we are too stupid to fact check your claims. The following are just a few examples of your very recent blatant factual misrepresentations, which are not just mere matters of differences of interpretation, but are instead glaring distortions of the factual record: ________________ On April 25, 2024, Speer claimed that (1) mortician Tom Robinson claimed in his HSCA testimony that he "saw a small wound that was not a bullet hole by [JFK's] temple," (2) that nineteen years later, before the ARRB, Robinson was no longer referencing the right temple wound, and testified instead "I think I saw two or three tiny wounds by [JFK's] right cheek," and (3) that fourteen years after that Doug Horne, without any actual reference to Tom Robinson's testimony at all claimed that "Robinson said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30374-incision-made-on-jfks-head-kennedy-assassination-nothing-to-see-here-an-incision-made-on-jfks-head/?do=findComment&comment=534508 Later on April 25, 2024, (1) I presented Speer with the HSCA transcript of Tom Robinsen's demonstrating that Robinson had said the right temple wound had been caused either "a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet," (2) I also presented Speer with the ARRB transcript demonstrating that Robinson in his 1996 ARRB testimony ALSO specifically described the right temple wound separately from the shrapnel punctures in the cheek and executed two drawings of that right temple wound, and (3) I pointed out that Doug Horne was basing his high forehead statement on Robinson's 1/12/1977 HSCA transcript showing that when Robinson was asked by HSCA attorney Andy Purdy whether the wound was "in the forehead region up near the hairline," Robinson replied in the affirmative, "yes," and that, as can be seen in Robinson's marking of the right temple wound in the skull diagram below, Speer's claim, made in an adjoining post, that the wound was below JFK's eye is also categorically false. https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30374-incision-made-on-jfks-head-kennedy-assassination-nothing-to-see-here-an-incision-made-on-jfks-head/?do=findComment&comment=534511 ________________ On April 20, 2024, Speer again recited his myth about HSCA autopsy technician James Jenkins allegedly denying the existence of the large avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head that Jenkins had described to the HSCA in 1977, and to David Lifton in 1979. Speer wrote: "...Jenkins said the back of the head between the ears was shattered but still intact beneath the scalp in filmed interviews with Harrison Livingstone and William Law, and then again at two different JFK Lancer conferences which I attended. At the first of these, there was a breakout session with about 30 people in attendance in which he was repeatedly grilled by Aguilar and Mantik about the back of the head, and told them repeatedly that it was shattered but intact beneath the scalp. Of course Mantik turned around and told this to Doug Horne and within days Horne had an article online in which he claimed Jenkins had told this audience that the autopsy photos are inaccurate and Horne then twisted this into Jenkins' claiming the back of the head was blown out--when he had actually said the exact opposite..." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534135 In telling this myth, what Speer did not realize is that there is a transcript of James Jenkins's 2013 Lancer Conference presentation that was independently prepared by someone who has nothing to do with David Mantik and Doug Horne which was posted on the Education Forum demonstrating that, contrary to Speer's claim, what Jenkins actually said at the conference was the following: "...there was a small entry…..exit, anyway a small wound that appeared to be approximately four….right in front of the top of the right ear and slightly above it...." "...At the conclusion of the autopsy my personal ideas of the things that I said, I was sure that the entrance wound was above the right ear and that the large wound in the back (of the head) was an exit wound. In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr. Boswell to the gallery...." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534146 Best demonstrating the ridiculousness of Speer's slanderous mythology about James Jenkins is the following drawing of the occipital parietal wound Jenkins executed for the HSCA in 1977 (corroborating his HSCA testimony), and the excerpt of Jenkins's 1979 interview by Dvid Lifton which follows it: ________________ On March 12, 2024, Speer regurgitated his myth about Parkland Nurse Audrey Bell (that Bell suddenly inserted herself as a witness into JFK assassination history starting in the 1980's after being groomed by JFK conspiracy advocates, and had never before claimed there was a large avulsive head wound, diplomatically characterizing her account as "bullshit"), as follows: "...There are some major problems with Horne's response. 1. He cites Audrey Bell as a credible witness, when she is not. She never mentioned anything about the head wound till decades after the shooting, after she had been embraced by the research community as a truth-teller..." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30250-doug-hornes-response-to-gary-aguilars-review/?do=findComment&comment=530774 My response, on the same date -- https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30250-doug-hornes-response-to-gary-aguilars-review/?do=findComment&comment=530820 -- was to remind Speer of the existence of an item of evidence that had many times been pointed out to him by others on this forum which completely demolishes his claim about Nurse Bell. A November 1967 paper authored by Bell herself, published in the journal of the Association of periOperative Registered Nurses, titled Forty-Eight Hours and Thirty-One Minutes, that contains references to events supporting the representations Bell would make in the 1980's, such as referencing her proximity to Dr. Perry and the performance of the tracheotomy, and "the massive head wound": https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001209208700474 "...I helped cut the President's shirt from his right arm, and positioned the tracheotomy tray for Dr. Perry. It was then that I saw the massive head wound. Even though the prospect of surgery-after viewing the proportions of the wound and the general condition of the President-was improbable, I rushed off in search of a telephone to call the Operating Room...." ________________ On January 21, 2024, Speer made the following blatantly false factual misrepresentations about Bethesda X-ray Technician Jerrol Custer: "Custer said that he would have to have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P x-ray. And that he couldn't and wouldn't have done that if the back of his head was missing. Keep in mind that the x-rays were taken with the brain still in the skull. He wasn't about to take an x-ray where the brain would be smushed onto the cassette." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526563 My response was as follows: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526695 Mr. Speer, I regret to inform you that I must once again point out your misrepresentation of testimony to the members of this forum. You claimed that Jerrol Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P X-ray if the back of his head was missing. This is, according to you, because the x-rays were taken with the brain still in the skull, so he wouldn't have taken such an x-ray as the brain would be "smushed onto the cassette" if he had done so. Below, I demonstrate your misrepresentations: As you can see in the first segment of Custer's deposition testimony I have highlighted in bright yellow, Custer testified that he didn't even see the stirrup at the autopsy, and that the stirrup was not used during x-rays, but only when the body was being probed. With regard to your claim that Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P X-ray, in the second segment I have highlighted in light yellow we see that Custer placed a sheet over the film to collect any bodily fluids that might drain while he was taking the x-rays. In the third pink-highlighted segment, when Jeremy Gunn questioned him about Autopsy Photos 42 and 43, Jerrol Custer confirmed that he had x-rayed the back of JFK's head and mentioned lifting the head just enough "to place the cassette underneath." Furthermore, contrary to your claim that Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette because the x-rays were taken while the brain was in the skull, so he wouldn't have taken such an x-ray as the brain would be "smushed onto the cassette" if he had done so, Custer consistently maintained throughout his deposition that there was no brain in the skull when he took the x-rays. Note that on page 89 of the deposition Custer states that the brain was missing from the skull at the time he took the initial set of x-rays, and indicates that he did not witness what was surely a pre-autopsy clandestine craniotomy: Finally, despite the impression you gave of Jerrol Custer's ARRB deposition as uneventful and uncontroversial, the truth is that Custer recalled highly controversial and explosive events, including: He mentioned seeing a mechanical device in the skull at the start of the autopsy; being told the body was at Walter Reed before being brought to Bethesda; witnessing Commander William Pitzer filming the autopsy; seeing more than one casket in the morgue; witnessing the Kennedy entourage arriving after the body had already been at Bethesda for over an hour; seeing interference with the autopsy from a four-star General and a plainclothesman in the gallery; and, many indications that Kennedy had been shot from the front. In the deposition, Custer's memories seem to overlap, such as when, as follows, he relates his memories of the mechanical device in JFK's skull, being told by two separate duty officers that JFK's body had been at the Walter Reed compound before arriving at Bethesda, and recalling having seen Commander William Pitzer filming the autopsy: And after a couple of attempts to get Speer to respond to the refutations I had made regarding his claims about Jerrol Custer with something more on point than a cut and paste job from his website, Speer responded by accusing me of being a "stalker": https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526705 ________________ As for Speer's defamatory misrepresentations about Dr. Robert McClelland; they are so numerous and malicious that I had to devote an entire thread to them which spanned 20 pages and had 285 replies:

@Sandy Larsen @Greg Doudna @Jean Ceulemans @Pat Speer The following is a history of Pat Speer's posts about James Jenkins on the Education Forum spanning the last fourteen years which demonstrates both that Speer has relentlessly made false representations on this forum about the historical claims of James Jenkins concerning the JFKA medical evidence, and has repeatedly, mercilessly and falsely accused James Jenkins of being less than forthcoming. I had promised several forum members that I would substantiate my claims with this, so here it is... The added emphasis to Mr. Speer's posts was added by me in bold black. And my commentary is in bold red. 1-15-2010 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15238-why-tink-and-i-love-jim-and-jack/?do=findComment&comment=179038 ...BTW, Humes and Boswell would not do this themselves; they'd have an assistant or "diener" do it. In this case, I believe it would have been Jenkins, who, as I recall, told either Lifton or Livingstone that he had indeed washed Kennedy's hair. Pat Speer began commenting about James Jenkins on the EdForum in 2010, in this case claiming that Jenkins had told David Lifton or Harrison Livingstone that he had washed JFK's hair; something that I have been unable to find in Lifton and Livingstone's chapters devoted to Jenkins. In fact, Jenkins specifically told William Law that the hair wasn't washed (Is Spear telling "the hair was washed tale to attempt to explain why the hair in the back of the head autopsy photograph looks washed instead of bloody?). Law, William Matson. In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (p. 238). Trine Day. Kindle Edition. ___________ 8-12-2010 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/16388-clint-hill/?do=findComment&comment=201324 ...From patspeer.com, chapter 18c:... ...Now, I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking, "but Pat you're cherry-picking witnesses to support your silly notion that the Parkland witnesses were wrong and that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 did not exit the back of his head." Well, first of all, I don't believe my noting that the earliest witnesses all said that a bullet hit Kennedy by the temple is silly, particularly in that three participants to Kennedy's autopsy--radiologist Dr. John Ebersole, radiology technician Jerrol Custer, and autopsy assistant James Curtis Jenkins--all left the autopsy with a similar impression a bullet struck Kennedy by the temple…. In his earliest comments about James Jenkins, Speer seemed to be in agreement with Jenkins's account of seeing an entrance wound at JFK's right temple. ___________ 10-08-2010 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/16717-eye-hand-witnesses-to-the-back-of-jfks-head-wound/?do=findComment&comment=208136 ...Note that the hair is always washed in autopsies where the skull is damaged and inspected, and that this would have been done by one of the assistants, and that one of Humes' assistants--Jenkins if I remember--acknowledged doing so. Speer again makes the claim that James Jenkins washed JFK's hair at the autopsy. ___________ 1-14-2012 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/18602-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/?do=findComment&comment=243833 Out of respect to you, Jim, I've been holding back on this, but since you bring it up... OfABCsandxrays.jpg When properly placed on the skull, the metal fragment on the Harper fragment is just forward and above Kennedy's right ear. James Curtis Jenkins, we should recall, told writer Harrison Livingstone that "just above the right ear there was some discoloration of the skull cavity with the bone area being gray and there was some speculation that it might be lead." That's no coincidence, IMO. A bullet broke up at that location. Speer again asserting Jenkins's account of seeing an entrance wound at JFK's right temple(something about which in later years Speer will take the opposite position in the context of questioning Jenkins's credibility). ___________ 8-17-2012 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19338-lifton-and-morningstar-nice-but-no-cigar/?do=findComment&comment=258504 Oh pleez is right. You know full well that historical (and legal) truth is not established by what is said first, but by what is said last. If someone says something that is inconsistent with what someone else said, or with photographic evidence, and this is made known to them, they should be given the chance to either withdraw their original statement, or double down. In this case, all the key Parkland witnesses either withdrew their original statements, or tried to find some middle ground whereby their statements could be consistent with the photographic evidence. Not one of the key witnesses went to his grave swearing the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, and that the autopsy photos were fakes (or that the body had been altered). And yet many CTs are not aware of this. Why? Because a certain element tries to shout anyone down who tries to point out the simple fact that, thanks largely to your efforts, the key Parkland witnesses were indeed given a chance to clarify the record...and did so...by admitting they were wrong.... This isn't about James Jenkins, but I couldn't resist including it because of the degree of its absurdity (it is axiomatic in the law that the earliest statements carry the most probative value and evidentiary weight), and because it demonstrates how Speer's bias motivates him to take absurd positions... ___________ 12-9-2013 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20859-james-curtis-jenkins-in-dallas-for-the-50th/?do=findComment&comment=282451 I was present at both of the focus groups led by Jenkins, and asked Jenkins a number of questions. It was the equivalent of having a two-hour plus talk with him. And one thing was clear: he was telling the truth as he knew it and had no agenda. Sure, his recollections helped fuel some long-held conspiracy beliefs. As I recall, some of his recollections regarding the casket etc, supported Lifton's theories. But you can't say he supported Z-film alteration and autopsy photo alteration etc, when his main point--the point he repeated over and over again--was that the back of the head WAS NOT BLOWN OUT. He, in fact, defended the authenticity of the photos and x-rays by repeating--over and over again to make sure those in the audience understood what he was saying--that the back of the head was smashed but intact, and fell to pieces when they peeled the scalp back. Jenkins is not a back of the head witness, nor an alterationist, and trying to claim him as one is just desperate. P.S. Jenkins' observation about the brain and skull was not supportive of the wound's being a large blow-out, but of it's being a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, precisely as I've been claiming for years. A transcript of the presentation given by James Jenkins and William Law at the "November in Dallas" 'JFK Lancer Conference' at the Adolphus Hotel on Friday, November 22, 2013 does not support the claims Mr. Speer made in the above post, namely that Jenkins had "repeated over and over again...that the back of the head WAS NOT BLOWN OUT," and that Jenkins had repeated "over and over again...that the back of the head was smashed but intact." What the transcript of the presentation itself indicates is that Jenkins referenced the head wounds as follows: "...there was a small entry…..exit, anyway a small wound that appeared to be approximately four….right in front of the top of the right ear and slightly above it...." "...At the conclusion of the autopsy my personal ideas of the things that I said, I was sure that the entrance wound was above the right ear and that the large wound in the back (of the head) was an exit wound. In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr. Boswell to the gallery...." The transcript of that presentation was prepared for William Law by EdForum member Pete Mellor and posted on the EdForum. See transcript via the following link: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437612 Speer says that he heard Jenkins make these statements in "both of the focus groups led by Jenkins," during which he asked Jenkins questions, so one or both of said groups may have been different events than the presentation that is transcribed, but for Jenkins to have made the statements about the back of the head being "intact" as Speer claimed he would have had to have departed from everything he had told David Lifton in 1979, Harrison Livingstone in 1990 and 1991 and William Law in 1998, and it makes no sense that Jenkins would do so. By making these claims in this post, Speer was establishing a baseline for James Jenkins from which Speer will later claim Jenkins deviates post 2015 with subsequent descriptions of JFK's head wounds when Jenkins was actually being consistent with all of his pre-2016 claims. Note that Speer's tendency to claim that Jenkins "repeated over and over again" something that Speer cannot prove Jenkins actually said surfaced again in his responses to me and Sandy Larsen in recent days. ___________ 12-10-2013 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20859-james-curtis-jenkins-in-dallas-for-the-50th/?do=findComment&comment=282477 Jenkins was consistent with his previous statements in that he got the impression from Humes that the brain just fell out in his hands. He personally infused the brain, and thought the carotids looked atrophied, as if they'd been severed for some time. So, yeah, his recollections are consistent with the brain having been removed and then replaced. This seems to be at odds with his other statements, however. He repeatedly claimed the back of the head was intact but shattered, and that it all fell apart when they peeled back the scalp. (Humes, Boswell, and Custer said essentially the same thing.) So it's hard to envision how anyone could have removed the brain and then put it back. I suspect instead that the brain stem was damaged by a bullet heading down the neck, but who knows? Jenkins repeated over and over again that he was there to tell us what he recalled, and not engage in speculation. He had an IMPRESSION the brain had already been removed. That's interesting. But not definitive. What we do know is that Jenkins does not support those claiming 1) the back of the head was blown out a la the McClelland drawing. He started his talk by describing a conversation he had with McClelland, and acknowledging that their recollections are greatly at odds. His recollection is that the back of the skull was in place, and that there was no major damage to the cerebellum. 2) the Harper fragment was occipital bone. Jenkins said there was NO wound low on the back of the skull. Period. 3) Humes expanded the head wound prior to the autopsy a la Horne. Jenkins' statements are totally at odds with the suspicion Humes expanded the wound prior to the autopsy. Jenkins saw a hole at the top of the head at the beginning of the autopsy that grew in size when Humes peeled back the scalp during the autopsy. Aguilar showed him a number of photos and I don't recall his saying he thought any of them were fake. He pointed out the meninges on the top of the head photo, and seemed convinced that that photo was 100% authentic. Here we have Speer making the twin claims that he has been unable to substantiate in 2024, that Jenkins had said that the back of JFK's head was "intact," and that Jenkins "saw a hole at the top of the head at the beginning of the autopsy." It causes me to wonder whether Speer had at this time already posted the screenshot from William Law's video in which Jenkins is touching the upper portion of the top of his head with his fingertips (but which cannot be distinguished in the screenshot on Speer's website because the screenshot has been darkened to make it look like Jenkins is instead touching the top of his head presumably by Speer), in which case, Speer's EdForum comments might be motivated by his desire to buttress the misinformation published on his website. Also of concern is Speer's claim that Jenkins had said that his description of the large head wound was "greatly at odds" with that of Dr. Robert McClelland: It seems much more likely that Jenkins had actually said something along the lines of what he said about the comparison of his head wound description with that of Dr. McClelland at the 1991 Dallas Medical Witnesses Conference: "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 states in his drawing, but a little higher" (Here Jenkins say this himself in the video below): ___________ 12-12-2013 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20872-james-jenkins-recounts-what-he-saw-at-bethesda/?do=findComment&comment=282552 ...3. Horne and Mantik's theories hold that the back of Kennedy's head was blown out in Dallas. Horne's theory is that Humes expanded THIS wound--the one on the back of the head--in a pre-autopsy. Jenkins specified that the back of the head was shattered but intact at the beginning of the autopsy, and collapsed when Humes peeled back the scalp. THIS WAS HUMES' TESTIMONY. It's ludicrous, then, to pretend Jenkins' statements are strong support for Horne or Mantik's theories, when they are, in fact, a significant challenge. I won't say they are an insurmountable challenge, however. Heck, even I can dream up a scenario in which Humes sutures the back of the head back together so he can peel back the scalp and have the skull collapse in front of an audience. If Jenkins "specified" that "the back of the head was shattered but intact at the beginning of the autopsy, and collapsed when Humes peeled back the scalp," then it was supposedly only to Pat Speer himself, because James Jenkins said nothing like that to David Lifton, Harrison Livingstone or William Law ___________ 2-20-2014 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21028-did-the-autopsy-doctors-think-the-fatal-bullet-exited-the-back-of-the-head/?do=findComment&comment=284846 ...Jenkins--probably a CT, but not an alterationist. I spoke with him this past November in Dallas, and his words suggested that he believed that the autopsy photos and x-rays are legit. He was adamant, in fact, that there was NO blow-out wound low on the back of the head.... James Jenkins expressed concerns about the authenticity of the autopsy photographs to David Lifton, Harrison Livingstone and William Law, particularly about the back of the head and top of the head autopsy photographs, but Jenkins may have been adamant that there was no blow out wound low on the back of the head because Jenkins has always described the rear blow out wound as being a little bit higher than what Dr. McClelland described, but the Pat Speer of 2024 will not admit that. ___________ 3-13-2014 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21028-did-the-autopsy-doctors-think-the-fatal-bullet-exited-the-back-of-the-head/?do=findComment&comment=285617 I talked to James Jenkins about this in November. I'd thought maybe they'd rinsed some of the brain from the hair. He said that the brain soaked hair was draped down to the left side of Kennedy's head. No surprise, I think he's correct, and that the two photos are both of Kennedy. This looks like something else that James Jenkins supposedly said to Mr. Speer, but to nobody else. ___________ 3-30-2014 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21116-on-the-possibility-of-jfks-throat-wound-being-an-exit-to-a-bullet-entering-the-head/?do=findComment&comment=285962 I spent a couple of hours listening to Jenkins talk this past November 22, and talked with him a bit myself, and your recollections of his recollections are not quite accurate, IMO. Jenkins said he heard Finck mention a possible entrance at the supposed exit (above the ear) and saw some discoloration of the bone in this location (suggesting an entrance). He took from this that there was an entrance in this location, which led him to be confused when the doctors concluded the bullet entered by the EOP. He never saw this entrance by the EOP, but did note that the skull was intact in that location, and that there was no blow-out wound low on the back of the skull, as claimed by so many CTs. As far as the brain, Jenkins was ADAMANT that his brother-in-law O'Connor was wrong, and that the brain was in the skull at the beginning of the autopsy. He said he heard Humes say something about the brain coming off in his hands when he peeled back the scalp and started to remove the brain, which led him (Jenkins) to wonder if the brain hadn't somehow been removed before the autopsy and placed back in the skull. (He had no explanation how or why this would have been done.) Still, he was clear that the brain was in the skull, and that he personally infused it with formalin. Speer constantly attributes this language to James Jenkins which Jenkins never used during any of his interviews. Jenkins has never said anything about the scalp being "peeled back," or about the skull "collapsing" when the scalp was "peeled back." James Jenkins has consistently told his interviewers that a skull cap was unnecessary because the brain fell out in prosector Humes's hands when the wound was expanded. Law, William Matson. In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (p. 231). Trine Day. Kindle Edition. ___________ 4-3-2014 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21116-on-the-possibility-of-jfks-throat-wound-being-an-exit-to-a-bullet-entering-the-head/?do=findComment&comment=286033 On 4/3/2014 at 7:05 AM, David Andrews said: I've read of herniated brain stems, where the impact of a bullet has pushed the brain stem through the foramen magnum and out of the skull. It seems possible, then, that the impact of the bullet on Kennedy's skull pushed the brain downward to such an extent that the brain stem got cut by the foramen magnum... If this had actually occurred, how was it even possible that JFK had minimal vital signs and respiration in the Parkland ER? ----------------------------- Based on Jenkins' statements, there were two cuts, one on each side. It seems possible, then, that an incomplete cut had damaged one side of the brain stem, and that Humes completed the cut with ease. He thereby made a remark about how easy this was. Which Jenkins recalled more or less correctly... This is just speculation on my part, of course. If you have information that even a partial cut of the brain stem will put an immediate stop to all vital signs, I'll be forced to reconsider. This is one of the rare examples when Speer actually admits he is just speculating rather than reciting facts. ___________ 12-4-2014 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21535-video-pat-speer-on-jfks-fatal-head-shot-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=292606 ...I spoke to James Jenkins extensively last year. He insisted there was no blow out wound low on the back of Kennedy's skull, and that the occipital bone was shattered but still extant beneath the scalp at the beginning of the autopsy.... 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. ___________ 12-14-2014 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21535-video-pat-speer-on-jfks-fatal-head-shot-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=293180 ...You're also wrong about Zelditz. Zelditz, as James Curtis Jenkins, specified that there was a wound on the back of the head in that the bone was shattered, but that this wound was covered by scalp and bloody hair.... Here, Speer is misstating both Dr. William Zedlitz's and James Jenkins's positions about the back of the head wound. Courtesy of @Vince Palamara ___________ 10-9-2015 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22096-the-eop-entrance-revealed/?do=findComment&comment=315978 Many if not most of the Bethesda "back of the head" witnesses described a large defect on the back of the head. A number of them specified that this large defect became apparent after the scalp was peeled back, and skull fell to the table. Well, guess what? That's what the doctors said from day one. That's the official story. And yes, in this instance I have some hands-on experience on this issue. James Jenkins showed up at the 50th anniversary Lancer conference to take questions and relate what he observed during the autopsy. I spoke to him several times, and observed him speak to crowds on three separate occasions. He was crystal clear on this point: the back of the head appeared to be intact, but the skull was like a shattered egg beneath the skin. Well, this confirmed my impression. A few days later, however, Doug Horne pumped out an article telling everyone Jenkins had said there was a big hole on the back of the head. It's like a religion, I suppose. James Jenkins never told any of his interviewers that the back of JFK's head "appeared to be intact." ___________ 10-13-2015 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22327-back-of-head-wound-again/?do=findComment&comment=316117 Yikes, Zelditz had placed the wound about half-way between the location of the wound in the autopsy photos and the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing. His extended description of the wound, and insistence he could see it without rotating Kennedy's head, moreover, supported that the wound was as depicted in the autopsy photos, and not as depicted in the McClelland drawing... ...When pushed, he explained it at the end. He said "The back of the head was not intact, but it was covered, as again I mention, with hair, blood, tissue, y'know, it was all there so you couldn't tell whether it was intact underneath that or not." He had thereby supported the statements of the autopsy doctors, and James Jenkins, etc, and the authenticity of the x-rays. The scalp at the back of the head was intact but the bone was shattered beneath the scalp. Mr. Speer is here explicitly misrepresenting Dr. William Zedlitz's testimony about the large head wound. Courtesy of Vince Palamara ___________ 12-10-2015 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22522-jfk-autopsy-x-rays-proved-fraudulent/?do=findComment&comment=319965 Jenkins tries to be very careful, and consistent. But he's only human, and sometimes reverses himself, or at least appears to reverse himself. One attendee at the conference tried to play "gotcha" with him, and pointed out to him that Livingstone had claimed he'd said one thing, and that he was now saying something else entirely. To which Jenkins responded by claiming that Livingstone sometimes had trouble understanding what he'd been telling him. Jenkins doesn't have a "theory" per se, or one he cares to share. From what I can gather, and I've read his interviews and talked to him several times now, he suspects there was more to it than Oswald, and that at least one shot impacted on the side of the head. He also believes the back wound was too low to support the single-bullet theory, and that the bullet creating this wound didn't even enter the body. And then there's his recollection regarding the brain. He says his impression was that the brain stem was at least partially cut before Humes went to cut it, and that when he transfused the brain it was apparent to him that the cut along the brain stem was uneven, like it had been cut, and then cut again. So, yes, it would SEEM like Jenkins would readily accept that the head had been reconstructed before he saw the body. And he has never ruled that out, as far as I am aware. He is quite specific and quite clear when you talk to him, however, on several points, which all too many people seem unwilling to grasp. 1. The back of the head between the ears was not a gaping hole upon the body's arrival at Bethesda. It was shattered like an eggshell beneath the scalp. (Note: radiology tech Jerrol Custer, who helped position the skull for the x-rays, said much the same thing.) James Jenkins never told any of his interviewers that there was no gaping hole in the back of JFK's head upon the arrival of the body at Bethesda. Jenkins consistently stated that there was. ___________ 12-10-2015 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22522-jfk-autopsy-x-rays-proved-fraudulent/?do=findComment&comment=319957 ...4. In any event, Bethesda witness James Jenkins was up next. Mantik interviewed Jenkins and William Law about a series of interviews they'd conducted some time back... The night before they discussed and played some of a new blu-ray of Jenkins discussing Kennedy's wounds with Paul O'Connor, Jim Sibert, Jerrol Custer, and Dennis David. On Saturday, if I recall, they played some of an interview in which several of Kennedy's honor guard were reunited with Jenkins and some of the Bethesda staff, to talk about the events of 11-22-63. In any event, I spoke to Jenkins afterward, and he confirmed, yet again, that the back of Kennedy's head between his ears was intact, but with shattered skull beneath the scalp. I then explained to him that ever since he spoke on the 50th, some have tried to use his words to suggest the back of the head was blown out, and that Horne and Mantik have tried to put this all together and have come up with Humes' performing some sort of pre-autopsy alteration of the head wounds. At this, Jenkins shook his head in disgust, and said something along the lines of "What are you gonna do? People are gonna think whatever they want to think." He then told me and several witnesses that he was with the body from its arrival until the beginning of the autopsy, and that the events described by Horne didn't happen at any morgue he'd been to. I then sought clarification by asking him if he meant that there was another morgue room down the hall that could have been used to do such a thing, and he looked at me like I was flat-out stupid and said there was but the one room where they could have done anything, and that it didn't happen there. 5. Next up was the producer of a new documentary on the Parkland Doctors. "Oh boy", I thought, "here we go. Some guy no one's ever heard of is gonna say he saw a blow-out wound on the back of the head, and everyone is going to ooh and ahh." But that's not what happened at all. Three doctors came onstage and told their stories: Salyer, Loeb, and Goldstrich, if I recall. Salyer was quite adamant that the head wound was on the temporal region in front of the ear, Loeb said it was on the top of the head, and Goldstrich never commented on the head wound.... James Jenkins never told any of his interviewers that the back of JFK's head "appeared to be intact".... ___________ 12-11-2015 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22522-jfk-autopsy-x-rays-proved-fraudulent/?do=findComment&comment=320032 Yikes. Let's be clear. Jenkins' recollections do not support the legitimacy of the autopsy photos. He doesn't flat out say they are fakes but he readily acknowledges they don't reflect what he remembers. His recollection is of a head wound further back on the head. But he is also adamant that the back of the head between the ears was intact, and that the cerebellum was basically intact and not exposed by a hole on the back of the head. Now, he was the guy who handled the brain. If there was a gaping hole through the cerebellum one would think he would have noticed.... Speer is here being unusually candid. ___________ 12-11-2015 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22522-jfk-autopsy-x-rays-proved-fraudulent/?do=findComment&comment=320030 I think they joked about it. Jenkins was involved in two presentations in Dallas. The first was promoting a new blu-ray comprising the interviews conducted by William Law for In the Eye of History. Well, I have the book, and saw several of these interviews at the 2005 Lancer conference, so I flinched at the prospect of paying 35 bucks for a blu-ray, when I don't even own a blu-ray player. But the blu-ray has an extra which aroused my curiosity, so I gave in. The extra? A three-hour interview where O'Connor, Jenkins, Jerrol Custer and Jim Sibert pass around the autopsy photos, and compare what is shown to what they remembered. The snippet shown was fascinating. They were all obviously doing their best--but their memories were obviously at odds on a number of points. I hope to watch it within a few days. I'll let you know if there's anything ground-breaking. ___________ 12-14-2015 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22534-david-mantik-responds-to-pat-speer/?do=findComment&comment=320201 Oops. As far as Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole, they all signed off on autopsy photos in which the scalp at the back of the head is intact, and never retreated from that position. Now, they said from the first that the back of the head was fractured, and that when the scalp was peeled back bone fell to the table, and this revealed a large defect stretching into the occiput. And this has allowed some to pretend they claimed or suggested or supported that there was a blow out wound on the back of the head. So, let's be clear. Mantik is not only claiming the back of the head was fractured beneath the scalp, but that it was MISSING, with a huge hole in the scalp. That the doctors thought this was bunkum is revealed both in the drawing they made during the autopsy (which is credible due to its placement of a back wound at a location too low to support the single shooter scenario), and in the drawing they made for the Warren Commission (which is credible due to its placement of the head wound in the middle of the top of the head, whereby it could be an exit from the front or the rear). As far as Jenkins, he was most certainly pointing out a hole observed after the scalp was reflected, and not a hole on the back of the head observed upon the body's arrival. In 2013, and then again in 2015, in front of multiple witnesses, he explained that the bone at the back of the head between the ears (where Mantik claims a large hole of scalp and skull was located) was fractured, a la an eggshell, but still extant beneath the scalp. Jenkins has been crystal clear in all of his interviews that he saw the large gaping head wound in the back of the head when he first saw the body, and not when the scalp was reflected (Jenkins says nothing about the scalp being reflected). Jenkins also never claimed that the back of JFK's head was extant or intact. ___________ 12-10-2016 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17203-the-trach-incision/?do=findComment&comment=338872 The doctors always acknowledged that essentially the whole right side of the brain case was fractured beneath the scalp, and that skull fell to the table when they refracted the scalp. This was confirmed to me personally by James Jenkins. And Jerrol Custer said much the same. This allowed the doctors to remove the brain with minimal sawing. When the skull was reconstructed, mortician Ed Stroble was pretty much starting from scratch, under orders to make the president presentable for an open casket viewing. So, of course, the hole at the end of the reconstruction was on the back of the head. Where else could he put it where it wouldn't be seen at the funeral? P.S. The majority of the Parkland witnesses described and pointed out a wound location at the top of the back of the head, along the right side. This is not where the hole was at the end of the reconstruction. That hole, according to Tom Robinson, was centered in the middle of the back of the head, and not visible when the head was resting on a pillow. So, whether or not you think the Parkland witnesses were correct or not in their original statements, the evidence strongly suggests that the hole at the end of the reconstruction was not where the hole was at the start of the autopsy.... So James Jenkins said this to Pat Speer, but not to any of his interviewers? How credible is that? ___________ 3-12-2017 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23591-on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-trial-of-lee-harvey-oswald-part-23-closing-arguments-and-verdict/?do=findComment&comment=346814 Doug Horne's spin on Jenkins' appearance at the 50th anniversary Lancer conference was misleading, to say the least. Horne did not talk to Jenkins at that conference. I did. I spoke to him again in 2015. While Jenkins' recollections do not support the official story, so to speak, neither do they support what Horne wants people to believe. Jenkins disputed his friend Paul O'Connor's claim there was very little brain in the skull. Jenkins held the brain and infused the brain. Paul did not. What Jenkins found so unnerving about the brain was the ease with which Humes removed it. This led him to speculate it was cut loose from the spine along the base. Now, one can take from this what they want, but NOT that the occipital area at the back of the skull was blown out. You see, Jenkins said...numerous times in my presence, and in the presence of others...that the occipital region at the back of the head was shattered but still in place beneath the scalp at the beginning of the autopsy. I asked Jenkins, moreover, why he didn't speak up and denounce those who kept claiming his recollections prove the back of the head was missing. He replied "Ah heck, people will say whatever they want--what you gonna do..." James Jenkins repeatedly referred to the head wound as being occipital-parietal throughout his various interviews. ___________ 3-17-2017 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23591-on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-trial-of-lee-harvey-oswald-part-23-closing-arguments-and-verdict/?do=findComment&comment=347290 On 3/16/2017 at 7:22 PM, James DiEugenio said: Pat: What you have Jenkins saying at the Lancer Conference is opposed to what he told Purdy back in 1977 for the HSCA. In an August 29. 1977 phone interview he told Purdy that he recalled a hole in the rear skull that was much bigger than the one depicted in the pics we have today. (see p. 12) This interview is listed as ARRB exhibit number 65 over at History Matters. As per DVP and Rosemary, then I guess we do not have a lot of hope in getting the full transcript That is really unfortunate as I really would have liked to have seen the whole thing. --------------------------------- I talked to Jenkins about this in both 2013 and 2015. He does indeed believe the hole on the head extended to the back of the head. But the top of the back of the head, not the bottom--where way too many CTs want to believe there was a "blow-out" wound. To be clear, in 2013 Jenkins showed me...and Aguilar, and Mantik, and Tink Thompson if I recall...where he believed the skull was shattered beneath the scalp, and where the scalp above this shattered skull was intact. And he pointed out the area behind his right ear on the back of his head. He was claiming, therefore, that there was no blow-out wound where Mantik and others claim there was a blow-out wound. In any event, I spoke to Jenkins again in 2015, with a young researcher (and writer) in attendance. He told us the same thing. When asked (I think by myself but perhaps by the young writer) why he didn't say anything when Mantik and Horne, etc, claimed him as a witness for something he insists he never witnessed, he said something along the lines of "People will believe what they want to believe...what'cha gonna do?" P.S. I just looked and Jenkins told Purdy the head wound stretched from the middle-temporal region back to the occipital." That's pretty much what he told me. Here, in response to @James DiEugenio, Speer is being unusually candid. One gets the feeling that the version of "the truth" that Speer tells often has much more to do with who his audience is than what "the truth" actually is. ___________ 12-1-2017 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24456-chessermantik-cut-from-mock-trial/?do=findComment&comment=365427 Jenkins was a no-show. They claimed he'd had transportation problems. But I'm not so sure. I spoke to him in 2013, and then again in 2015. He was clear on two points that some might find surprising. One is that there was no pre-autopsy or whatever performed by Humes. And two is that the low back of the head was shattered but held together by the scalp. i.e. there was no occipital blow-out wound where all too many claim there was an occipital blow-out wound. ___________ 12-2-2018 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=388827 McClelland did not fill out a death certificate. But he has said an awful lot of stuff at odds with what most CTs presume he has said. And in this regard, he's not unlike Jenkins, who moved the large head wound to the back of the head for his book.... And this is the first instance of Mr. Speer implying that James Jenkins was less than forthcoming, when the fact is that James Jenkins has always maintained that the large gaping wound was on the back of JFK's head. ___________ 12-3-2018 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=388862 ...To bring this back to topic, moreover, it should be noted that, with his new book, James Jenkins has changed his recollections of the head wound location to a more agreeable location to these conspiracy theorists. And by stating that "James Jenkins changed his recollections of the head wound location to a more agreeable location to these conspiracy theorists," Pat Speer was accusing James Jenkins of telling falsehoods. ___________ 12-10-2018 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=389226 ...Here is where Jenkins claimed he saw the "open hole" when speaking to William Law in 1990. And here is where he now claims he saw the wound. "They" --and by "they" I mean a parade of "researchers" desperate to sell the public there was a blow-out wound on the back of Kennedy's head--got to him. And by saying that the researchers "desperate to sell the public there was a blow-out wound on the back of Kennedy's head" got to him, Pat Speer is in addition to alleging that Jenkins changed his story -- when he actually never did -- implying that James Jenkins was less than forthcoming. Secondly, note above the screenshot of James Jenkins that Speer took from William Law's video interview of James Jenkins and darkened to make it appear like Jenkins is touching the top of his head to indicate there was a hole on the top of JFK's head. That screenshot was cherry picked out of the entire sequence of Jenkins demonstrating the head wound which included the movements shown in the following screenshots from William Law's book (and note that in the clear version of the screenshot that Mr. Speer used it is clear that Jenkins is touching the back of his head with his fingertips rather than the top of his head): ___________ 12-11-2018 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=389242 Read those words carefully. There's some deception involved. For decades, certain CTs--including the CTs helping Jenkins with his book--have been claiming the head wound was on the back of the head at Parkland, and is accurately depicted in the so-called McClelland drawing (which was not actually drawn by McClelland). Jenkins, however, has long claimed the wound was on the top of the head, and that the skull on the back of the head in the location of the wound in this drawing was present., but shattered beneath the scalp. Jenkins was thereby a huge obstacle for those claiming the witnesses suggest the photos are fake and that the head wound was really on the back of the head. So Jenkins has thrown them a bone, and is now claiming the wound he saw resembled the wound in the drawing AFTER the scalp was reflected. Well, think about it. This is as much as admitting that the wound he saw before the scalp was reflected did not resemble this wound. It's all gobbledy-gook designed to sell that the wound was on the back of the head, and that witnesses (such as Jenkins and McClelland) share the same recollection. But it's all smoke and mirrors. I mean, think about it. Jenkins says the hole he saw was 2.5-3 by 1.5 to 2 in (3.75 to 6 sq in), while McClelland says the hole he saw was 4 by 5 in (20 sq in)... So...yes... the hole as described by McClelland was 3 1/3 to 5 1/3 times as large as the hole described by Jenkins. The wounds they describe are not remotely similar, and it's foolish to pretend that they are... In this post, Mr. Speer in SIX separate instances implies that James Jenkins has changed his story. This is also the first post in which Speer claims that Jenkis "has long claimed the wound was on the top of the head" after eight years of posting about Jenkins. Speer evidently felt confident posting this because of the deceptive darkened screenshot on his website which, according to Speer, and only to Speer, shows Jenkins pointing to the top of his head as the location of JFK's head wound. ___________ 12-12-2018 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=389393 ...I have witnessed Jenkins discussing this with others. When asked how he could explain the brain's being placed into the skull, when the hole he saw at the beginning of the autopsy was too small for the brain to pass through, he said he had no explanation, but that that was his impression--that the brain removed by Humes had been placed back in the skull. In his new book, written with the help of body-alteration theorists, however, he makes out that he saw incisions along the head which marked where scalp and skull could have been pulled back to facilitate the replacement of the brain. I'm fairly certain this is a new addition to his story. Mr. Speer is being disingenuous in this post. He knows full well that in 1998 James Jenkins told William Law about the incisions he saw on JFK's head that he had come to believe had been used to remove and replace the brain, yet he is here pretending that this is some new development in Jenkins's 2018 book. Speer's insinuation that this "is a new addition to his story" is yet another example of Speer accusing James Jenkins of falsely amending his claims about the medical evidence. Law, William Matson. In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (p. 231). Trine Day. Kindle Edition. ___________ 12-12-2018 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=389359 Nope. As demonstrated on the images above, Jenkins has routinely pointed to the top of his head above his ear as the location of the gaping hole observed at the beginning of the autopsy. He has long-claimed as well that the back of the head--meaning the far back of the head at the level of the ears--was shattered but intact beneath the scalp, but that it fell to the table upon reflection of the scalp. This is, for that matter, the official story, and is backed up by, among others, Jerrol Custer. There was no gaping hole on the far back of the head at the level of the ears. Very few witnesses claimed to see as much, It is a CT myth, that, apparently, was recently sold to Jenkins. Jenkins not only has not "routinely" pointed to the top of his head as the location of the gaping hole observed at the beginning of the autopsy, he has NEVER once done so. And Jenkins has never indicated that the back of JFK's head was "intact beneath the scalp," or that the shattered back of the head "fell to the table upon reflection of the scalp." Secondly, Speer's claim that the existence of the gaping back of the head wound "was recently sold to Jenkins" is another example of Speer questioning Jenkins's veracity. ___________ 12-19-2018 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25386-pre-autopsy-surgery/?do=findComment&comment=390385 A little food for thought... Lifton and Horne et al have long claimed the body was altered, and that the wound as seen at Bethesda was 4-5 times larger than the wound seen at Parkland. Now Jenkins comes along and says no, the wound he saw was small, about 1/5 the size of the wound Dr. McClelland says he saw at Parkland. And he says as well that the large hole seen at Bethesda was seen after the scalp was pulled back and skull fell to the table. And that, furthermore, he was with the body from the beginning, and no pre-autopsy surgery was conducted at Bethesda. So now, Horne, who claims the body was altered at Bethesda, and Jenkins are totally at odds. But Lifton and Jenkins are also at odds. While Jenkins has a feeling the brain he saw was not Kennedy's actual brain, and had surreptitiously been placed back in the skull before the autopsy, his statements force those believing the body was altered into a corner. If they find Jenkins credible, Lifton and Horne's theory is finito, and there was no pre-autopsy surgery performed to disguise the nature of the skull wounds. (Jenkins, after all, now claims he saw an exit wound on the back of the head and an entrance wound by the ear). And if they find Jenkins not credible, well, then, that shoots down the alterationist argument we need to listen to the witnesses and ignore the photos and x-rays. So...which is it? That Speer insinuates that Jenkins "now claims" that there was an exit wound on the back of the head and an entrance wound by the ear is another example of Speer accusing Jenkins of being less than forthcoming. And when Speer alleges that these claims of Jenkins's are new, it is Speer who is lying. ___________ 6-3-2019 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25809-11221991-jerrol-custer-tom-wilson-and-harry-livingstone/?do=findComment&comment=401403 …P.S. I don't think Custer saw the "chat" as friendly. Few realize that after being subjected to a number of such chats with men like Wilson and Mantik, Custer turned his back and told the ARRB the x-rays were the genuine article, and that the back of the head was not missing at the beginning of the autopsy, but broken like an egg shell. Strikingly, this is exactly what James Jenkins told me a number of times, before someone (almost certainly Michael Chesser) convinced him to "change" his impressions for his book. Mr. Speer again alleges Jenkins changed his story by insinuating that Dr. Michael Chesser convinced him "to change his impressions for his book," and Speer's contention that Jenkins told him that there was not a large gaping wound in the back of JFK's head but not any of his interviewers is just not credible. ___________ 10-2-2021 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26802-a-little-factoid-about-parkland-doctor-marion-jenkins/?do=findComment&comment=447954 …There is no way most doctors--outside those fresh out of medical school--would pass an anatomy test. It was explained to me years ago that doctors routinely use the words temporal to mean the side of the head and occipital to mean the back of the head, and not specifically low on the back of the head--the location of the occipital bone. In such case, Jenkins' claim the wound was temporal and occipital would mean the wound was on the side of the head toward the back…. ___________ 1-23-2022 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27466-jfk-revisited-through-the-looking-glass/?do=findComment&comment=453341 ...Within the hour of my conversation with these men, I had talks with William Newman and James Jenkins. They also claimed the large wound they saw was on the top right side of the head where it is shown in the autopsy photos.... James Jenkins has never said to any of his interviewers that the autopsy photographs show the back of the head blow out, so why would he have made such a claim to Pat Speer? ___________ 1-23-2022 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27466-jfk-revisited-through-the-looking-glass/?do=findComment&comment=453308 ...What a lot of researchers miss is that many witnesses have succumbed to pressure from the research community. I personally witnessed people try to bully James Jenkins into saying the back of the head was missing, which he vehemently denied, only to later publish a book in which he succumbed to their pressure and wrote that the back of the head was missing.... And yet another example of Mr. Speer insinuating that James Jenkins changed his story. ___________ 4-9-2022 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27693-rare-hsca-testimony-of-jfk-autopsy-dr-james-j-humes-1978/?do=findComment&comment=457468 ...Humes, Boswell, Jenkins and Custer, at the very least, were in agreement that the skull on the back of the head was badly shattered, but intact, at the beginning of the autopsy, and that it fell apart when Humes peeled back the scalp.... James Jenkins has never made such a claim... ___________ 7-5-2022 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27861-message-from-david-von-pein/?do=findComment&comment=463419 ...I once asked James Jenkins how it was that so many people think he said the back of the head was blown out when he had repeatedly told them it was intact, but shattered beneath the scalp. And he told me with a world-weary voice... "People will believe what they want to believe." He then put out a book in which he moved the wound he said was on top of the head to the back of the head... And received tons of praise for sticking to his story, and telling the truth, when he'd really changed his story to appease those who wanted to believe. This is an example of Pat Speer getting sloppy with his anecdotes in that it differs from all the previous versions of this story told in his previous posts, and is falsified by the fact that James Jenkins had never claimed that the back of JFK's head was intact. Secondly, this is another example of Speer alleging that Jenkins changed his story about the location of the wound, thereby yet again accusing Jenkins of being less than forthcoming. ___________ 8-13-2022 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27999-prayer-man/?do=findComment&comment=467917 ...While a lot of researchers focus on the malleability of witnesses when confronted by law enforcement, I think very few realize that these same witnesses are often coerced or pressured into saying stuff contrary to what they believe by people like themselves. I've seen this for myself. I've seen witnesses confronted by people with a clear agenda, where the witnesses end up letting these people think they agree with them, when they do not. Tellingly, I once confronted James Jenkins on this very issue. I pointed out that people were using his statements to suggest there was a gaping hole on the back of Kennedy's head, when he'd been very clear that there was no such gaping hole. He looked at me and said, with a world-weary voice, "People will believe what they want to believe." But given that James Jenkins never claimed there was not a gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, how could this homily of Speer's possibly be true? ___________ 9-5-2022 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28107-parklands-dr-paul-peters-to-gerald-posner-dr-robert-mcclelland-wasnt-in-the-best-position-to-see-the-head-wound-because-he-was-on-the-other-side-of-the-table/?do=findComment&comment=470682 Now, some prominent CTs, perhaps even most of them, have played word games for decades--deliberately interpreting "back of the head" to mean the far back of the head. They desperately want to believe everything adds up and the back of the head was blasted out. Only...the very witnesses they claim as support for this have pulled the rug out from them by routinely pointing to a location above the ear...above the occipital bone...above the cerebellum. The location they point to, on average, is roughly halfway between where so many want the wound to be and where it is shown on the autopsy photos. Now, a non-zealot would say "Well, if there are photos showing one thing, and people recall something slightly different, then the photos are probably accurate." But that doesn't happen in this case. Instead, people say "Well, the photos show one thing, and people recall something slightly different, so they must really mean they saw something that was depicted in a drawing 50 years ago, that someone told me was accurate." (I witnessed this myself at one point. I was in a group discussion with James Jenkins in which he was asked and asked repeatedly if there was a blow-out wound on the far back of JFK's head, and he answered over and over that there was no such wound--that the skull was shattered on the far back--as is shown on the x-rays--but that the scalp over this shattered bone was intact. Well, within days one of those in attendance reported back to someone that Jenkins had said the autopsy photos didn't quite match what he recalled, and this person then wrote a widely disseminated online article claiming that Jenkins had disavowed the autopsy photos--and that this was because the back of the head was blown-out...EXACTLY WHAT JENKINS SAID HAD NOT HAPPENED.) James Jenkins has been pointing out that there are major problems with the back of the head autopsy photographs since his 1979 interview by David Lifton, and in every interview since that I am aware of. Once again, Speer's story makes no sense. ___________ 10-21-2022 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28244-patrick-bet-davids-interview-with-james-curtis-jenkins/?do=findComment&comment=475480 ...So...back to Jenkins and O'Connor. Having met Jenkins, I think he has always told the truth as he saw it. At the 2013 Lancer Conference, in a side room discussion which was unfortunately not recorded, he was asked over and over about JFK's large head wound. And, much to the dismay of those claiming it was on the far back of the head, he said over and over again that it was at the top of the head, and that the back of the head was shattered but in place beneath the scalp. A few years later I met him at another conference--this was witnessed by Matt Douthit--and I pointed out to Jenkins that some of those with whom he was appearing had long claimed the back of the head was blown out and that there was a conspiracy to hide this from the public. He said something like "Yeah, well, what can you do? People are gonna believe what they want to believe." So I was shocked when he later put out a book, with a forward by Mike Chesser, who evidently helped him on the book, claiming the back of the head was blown out. This was in opposition to not only what Jenkins had said at the 2013 conference, and later to me personally, but what he told William Law in the their taped conversations. And yet there he was, reversing himself.... This is another example of Mr. Speer questioning James Jenkins's veracity by alleging that he changed his story about the nature of the large head wound, supposedly "reversing himself." Another problem with this post, in addition to those with Speer's anecdotal stories already pointed out above, is that Speer claims that the interview of Jenkins taped by William Law in 1998 supports his anecdotal stories which is definitely does not. Just as David Lifton reported in 1979, and Harrison Livingstone reported in 1990 and 1991, William Law's taped 1998 interview shows James Jenkins describing the large gaping head wound in the back of JFK's head as being occipital-parietal. ___________ 2-27-2023 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28849-confused-looking-for-opinions-on-jfks-brain/?do=findComment&comment=492494 I talked to Jenkins a number of times at several conferences, and he insisted the back of the head was not missing--that it was shattered but intact under the scalp. Jerrol Custer said much the same thing--that the back of the head was like a shattered eggshell beneath the scalp. In Jenkins' case, he said this a number of times until he finally switched the wound on top of the head to low on the back of the head, while under the influence of Chesser.... In addition to again reciting his discredited anecdotal story, this is also another example of Speer accusing James Jenkins of being less than forthcoming by alleging that he changed his story under the influence of Dr. Michael Chesser. ___________ 9-1-2023 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29554-the-mystery-of-kennedys-brain-deepens/?do=findComment&comment=512581 FWIW, I saw Jenkins speak at a couple of conferences, and spoke to him in person on two occasions. He was consistent from day one that NO body alteration occurred prior to the start of the autopsy. He was clear that this did not happen, and when I offered that maybe it had been done in another room he corrected me and pointed out that there was no other room in which it could have occurred. He said the ONLY way it could have occurred was if it occurred prior to the body's arrival at Bethesda, and by someone other than Humes. Well, this sinks Horne's boat. I was surprised for that matter when Horne wrote an article making out that Jenkins' statements supported that the back of the head was blown out and that Humes performed surgery to the head before the beginning of the autopsy. This was bizarre. Jenkins had told myself and others, including the source for Horne's article, the exact opposite of what Horne claimed he'd said. . The article by Doug Horne that Speer is referencing can be accessed via the following link: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html Doug Horne's references to "the posterior head wound" in his article are consistent with the transcript of Jenkins's Lancer Conference presentation, a transcript which contradicts Speer's anecdotal stories about the conference. What that transcript indicates that James Jenkin said about the large gaping head wound is as follows: "...At the conclusion of the autopsy my personal ideas of the things that I said, I was sure that the entrance wound was above the right ear and that the large wound in the back (of the head) was an exit wound. In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr. Boswell to the gallery...." The transcript of that presentation was prepared for William Law by EdForum member Pete Mellor and posted on the EdForum. See transcript via the following link: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437612 Every indication is that it is Speer's account of the Lancer Conference presentations that is false, not Horne's. Furthermore, Speer also claimed that Jenkins was clear that body alteration did not occur before the autopsy, but the truth is that Jenkins does, and has historically believed that body alteration did take place before the autopsy, just not at the Bethesda morgue. ___________ 9-2-2023 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29554-the-mystery-of-kennedys-brain-deepens/?do=findComment&comment=512606 To be clear, I don't think Horne was pulling a con. Just desperately flailing. He was not in attendance at the conference, nor at the break-away session with 20 or so of us in a room. His source was Mantik. As I recall, Jenkins said he wasn't sure the photos were legit, and Mantik told this to Horne, who turned around and rushed out an article/blog post claiming Jenkins's statements supported his own theories. Well, this was nonsense seeing as Jenkins had specified that the back of the head was not blown out and that the body was not altered at Bethesda. Again, it is Speer's anecdotal story not Horne's article that is contradicted by the transcript of the Lancer presentation, and James Jenkins has been on record since 1977 that the back of Kennedy's head was blown out, as can be seen in the following sketch of JFK's body Jenkins executed for the HSCA in 1977: ___________ 10-1-2023 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29693-victory-for-the-credibility-of-parkland-nurse-audrey-bell/?do=findComment&comment=515463 ...Also attending this conference were Newman and Jenkins, both of whom similarly denied there had been a wound on the far back of the head.... Again, James Jenkins has always been consistent that there was a large gaping wound at the back of JFK's head... ___________ 11-14-2023 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29796-jfk-what-the-doctors-saw/?do=findComment&comment=519512 ...I am assuming this is the Parkland doctors footage, only re-cut to be more sexy. I have mentioned this before, but I was at a Lancer conference where three of those interviewed in this film spoke, along with James Jenkins and William Newman. NOT ONE of them said the far back of the head was blown out or that the autopsy photos are fakes. In fact the four who said they got look at the wound ALL said the wound was by the ear, where it is shown in the photos. (Correction:. Jenkins did express some disagreement with the photos but nevertheless insisted that the back of the skull, while shattered, remained beneath the scalp.) And yet certain people--pretending to stand in support of the Parkland witnesses--continue to push that the back of the head was missing. It's a red herring, folks. IF people had spent as much time READING and LEARNING as they had pestering old people into confirming their pet theory, the case would have been re-opened decades ago. But we instead ended up in this divide where people sift through the evidence without actually seeing, and claim the very evidence PROVING more than three shots were fired must be fake...because because because... James Jenkins has always been a back of the head wound witness, it is Speer's revisionist claims that are false... ___________ 12-23-2023 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30010-two-head-shots-and-the-zapruder-film/?do=findComment&comment=524034 ...P.S. You are correct about my bias. In 2013, in a breakout session at the Lancer Conference, Aguilar, Mantik, Thompson, myself and maybe 15 others bombarded James Jenkins about the head wound. Jenkins insisted under repeated questioning that the skull was damaged at the back of the head but intact beneath the scalp. Mantik then contacted Horne about this session, and within a day or two Horne put up an online article stating that Jenkins had said the autopsy photos weren't precisely as he remembered, and then presented this is as proof the back of the head was blown out...PRECISELY what Jenkins said was not true. And then there's the new film on what the doctors saw. Jenkins repeats his belief there was a bullet entrance by the ear. Horne then jumps in and says he is describing a bullet hole high up on the forehead, where ding ding ding...it just so happens he, Mantik and Chesser have taken to claiming a bullet entered. Well, heck, Jenkins said no such thing, and has specifically ruled out such an entrance in his book and in interviews. So, no, I don't trust anything Horne comes up with anymore... James Jenkins has never told any of his interviewers that the back of JFK's skull was "intact beneath the scalp," so what was so different about this Lancer Conference? Could it just be that the difference is Speer is telling the story? ___________ 1-4-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30045-why-pat-speer-owes-the-family-of-dr-robert-mcclelland-an-apology/?do=findComment&comment=525054 Oh my, from taking another quick glance, I see you are presenting a 2018 drawing by James Jenkins as support for the accuracy of the McClelland drawing. This is nonsense of the worst kind. As I've been saying since you got here, do the research. Jenkins pointed out the wound location on camera for Harrison Livingstone in 1991, and William Law in 1998, and pointed to the top of his head on both occasions. He then attended the JFK Lancer conference with Law, in 2013, and declared under repeated questioning that the back of the head was NOT blown out--that it was shattered beneath the scalp--but not blown out. A few years later, moreover, he attended another Lancer Conference, where I talked with him in the presence of Matt Douthit. He told us what he'd said before--that the back of the head was not blown out. When I pointed out to him that those championing him at the conference, such as Mantik, believed otherwise, and were insistent that the back of the head was missing when Jenkins viewed Kennedy, he said "What can I say? People will believe what they want to believe." He was then befriended by Chesser, and convinced to change his claims from there being a hole at the top of the head, and shattered skull on the back, to there being shattered skull on the top of the head, and a hole on the back. It's a shame. This was Mr. Speer's first post to me about James Jenkins, in which he advised me to research James Jenkins, which I have, leading me to conclude Speer has falsely questioned Jenkins's veracity. This post pretty much contains the whole gambut of his lies, and also accuses James Jenkins of being less than honest by alleging that Dr. Michael Chesser persuaded him to change his story about there being a hole on the top of JFK's head. At the time, Speer was relying upon his darkened screenshot from the videotape of William Law interviewing Jenkins on his website that is discussed above as well as the following screenshots with utterly terrible resolution of Jenkins demonstrating the location of the large head wound at the 1991 Dallas Medical Witnesses Conference (Note how the terribe resolution makes it appear as if Jenkins has his hand on the right side of his head covering his ear): When I located the video of the 1991 Dallas Conference I cleaned it up and color corrected it as well as I could and made the following GIF which makes it clear that Jenkins was IN FACT placing his hand on the back of his head to demonstrate the location of the large gaping head wound: And the video of that segment with the audio makes it even more clear that Jenkins has placed his hand on the back of his head, proving that Speer's website presentation was fraudulent: ___________ 1-6-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30045-why-pat-speer-owes-the-family-of-dr-robert-mcclelland-an-apology/?do=findComment&comment=525289 ...P.P.S. I spoke to Jenkins on multiple occasions and he steadfastly insisted that the back of the head was shattered but intact beneath the scalp. That's just not true. ___________ 1-9-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30045-why-pat-speer-owes-the-family-of-dr-robert-mcclelland-an-apology/?do=findComment&comment=525614 Oh my. For those confused by all this, this character is citing a James Jenkins drawing showing a wound on the back, top and side of the head which stretches to the front...as evidence for a comparatively small blowout wound on the far back of the head. No matter what you think the head wound looked like when first viewed at Bethesda, this is clearly the wound as observed after the removal of the brain, and not the wound as first viewed. The least bit of research, moreover, would have proved what I have claimed for roughly a decade...that Jenkins told Livingstone and later Law and eventually a roomful of researchers, including myself, that the far back of the head at the level of the ear--the occipital bone--was shattered but still extant beneath the scalp. Still, he doesn't dispute that, really, does he? No, he makes out instead that the only evidence for this is my say-so. That's not research. That's whining. "I don't like what you say, so I'm gonna tell everyone you're a xxxx, without even checking out what you've said against the multiple sources you provide." What a crock. Another response of Speer's to a post of mine which demonstrates his hubris, and Speer again fraudulently misrepresents what Jenkins told Livingstone and Law, then tries to combine same with his corrupt anecdotal story about the Lancer Conference... ___________ 1-23-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30096-the-back-of-head-wound-as-sketched-by-dr-mcclelland-in-tmwkk-1988/?do=findComment&comment=526717 ...As far as Jenkins...whoa. Now I owe Jim Jenkins an apology? For what? I was in the room with Jenkins alongside Thompson, Aguilar, and Mantik...when he stated under repeat questioning that the back of the head was damaged beneath the scalp, and that the hole was at the top of the head. It wasn't me that turned around and misrepresented what he said as supporting that the back of the head was blown out. That was Doug Horne, after being briefed by Mantik. And it wasn't me that coerced him into flipping it around and claiming the hole was on the back of the head and the damaged skull was at the top of the head. That was Mike Chesser.... Speer writing his top of the head lie again, and then accusing James Jenkins of lying by changing his story about the location of the large head wound under the influence of Dr. Michael Chesser... ___________ 4-20-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534135 It's not my conjecture. Jenkins said the back of the head between the ears was shattered but still intact beneath the scalp in filmed interviews with Harrison Livingstone and William Law, and then again at two different JFK Lancer conferences which I attended. At the first of these, there was a breakout session with about 30 people in attendance in which he was repeatedly grilled by Aguilar and Mantik about the back of the head, and told them repeatedly that it was shattered but intact beneath the scalp. Of course Mantik turned around and told this to Doug Horne and within days Horne had an article online in which he claimed Jenkins had told this audience that the autopsy photos are inaccurate and Horne then twisted this into Jenkins' claiming the back of the head was blown out--when he had actually said the exact opposite. Now, the next year, he made an appearance with Mantik and Chesser and I spoke to him a bit with Matt Douthitt, and I told Jenkins these guys were taking his words and twisting them into support for their belief the back of the head was blown out. And he said "What are you gonna do? People will believe what they want to believe..." So I was as shocked as anyone when I saw Jenkins pull a flip-flop on all this but when I looked closely at his book I found my answer--he credited Mike Chesser with help on the book. So, yeah, from where I stand--and from what I have witnessed personally--Mantik, Horne, and Chesser are in the deception business. Now they may be deceiving themselves first and foremost, but they are not particularly interested in the truth, IMO. The above post contains practically every falsehood that Speer now routinely tells about James Jenkins, but Speer actually has the nerve to conclude it by accusing Jenkins, Mantik, Horne and Chesser of being fabricators. ___________ 4-21-2024 ED FORUM POST OF KEVEN HOFELING TO PAT SPEER https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534146 Given your post, and my review of the transcript of the November 22, 2013 Lancer Confence that you appear to be referencing therein, I think that "conjecture" is not a strong enough word. "Lies" is probably the correct term, unless you are able to explain the discrepancies which follow between the excerpts from the transcript of the 2013 Lancer Conference and the representations you have made in the post to which this is a response, as well as on your website, about the statements that James Jenkins made about JFK's head wounds during his presentation at that conference: You can find the transcript I will be referencing below at the following link: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437612 James Jenkins referenced two head wounds, as follows: "...there was a small entry…..exit, anyway a small wound that appeared to be approximately four….right in front of the top of the right ear and slightly above it...." "...At the conclusion of the autopsy my personal ideas of the things that I said, I was sure that the entrance wound was above the right ear and that the large wound in the back (of the head) was an exit wound. In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr. Boswell to the gallery...." Now this transcript was made by Pete Mellor, as he indicates on the post via the following link, so it has nothing to do with Doug Horne and Dr. David Mantik: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437633 Not only does this indicate to me that, as I have always suspected, you have been lying about James Jenkins' testimony all along, but the evidence I have been consistently posting in response to your claims about Jenkins also indicates that you are lying. ___________ 4-21-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534158 What the??? As stated, Jenkins is on camera saying the back of the head was shattered beneath the scalp but not blown out of the skull. He has said a lot of things that are problematic for the official story, that's for sure. But he has claimed this part of the head was intact at the beginning of the autopsy.... ...P.S. I notice that you mention Jenkins' claim he saw a bullet wound by the ear. Well, he initially said this was a gray smear on the bone, which helped convince me I was correct about a bullet's entering at this location. Then, after being pounded for years by your heroes, he started claiming he saw a bullet hole by the ear and not just a gray smear. And then, with the release of JFK: What the Doctors Saw, these years of manipulation paid off--as Horne was now claiming this bullet hole, which was originally not a bullet hole, was actually a bullet hole high on the forehead. Which Mantik and Horne had conjured up from almost nothing... In any event, it's nice to see you acknowledge Jenkins said this was by the ear, and that Horne's claim it was really high on the forehead is nonsense. Pat Speer doubling down on his lies and concluding by again accusing James Jenkins of being deceptive... ___________ 5-5-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30409-what-james-jenkins-actually-said/ I see that on another thread Keven is trying to propagate a myth about what James Jenkins actually said about JFK's large head wound. From chapter 19f... Unbelievable... ___________ 5-27-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=536947 Yes, it's important that Keven prove me correct over and over again. .Jenkins points out a wound at the top of his head in the images he presents, exactly as I've claimed. He is not a supporter of Horne's and I suspect both of your theories, and you should stop pretending he is. Here is what he had to say on the matter, in a book written with the assistance of Michael Chasser. This is exactly what I have been saying he has told me, and here he put it into print so people like yourselves would know his stance on this issue. 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." Now, Why would he feel the need to write that, some may ask? Why single Horne out? Here's why. In his opus Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Horne repeatedly misrepresents fact after fact but singles Jenkins out for special treatment. Researcher Matt Douthit pointed this out to me years ago and you can check it for yourself. We have seen how Jenkins insisted he never left the morgue and that no post-mortem surgery as described by Horne took place. Now note Horne's claims about Jenkins--deceptions Horne needs to pretend are true else his whole Humes as ghoul theory dissolves into nothing... · “...James Jenkins...[is] dismissed...” (Page 1003) · “...[Roy Kellerman] readmits...Jenkins...” (Page 1008) · “If Jenkins was dismissed from the morgue...as I infer...” (Page 1036) · “...Prior to 8:00 PM...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1039) · “...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1040) · “...Prior to 8:00 PM...he [was] not present in the morgue...” (Page 1048) But where is Keven Hofeling's thread about Horne, who Jenkins himself has singled out as someone whose claims can not be trusted? Speer demonstrating his failed strategy calculated to defend his lies: Claiming that the photo of James Jenkins out of William Law's book shows Jenkins pointing to the top of his head rather than the back of his head, and throwing out straw man arguments and red herrings about Doug Horne... ___________ 5-27-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=536985 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." SO... a straight-forward discussion of what James Jenkins did or did not see is a problem, a big problem, for Horne's theory. So how does a lawyer "lawyer" his way out of this? Obfuscate... and claim I, Pat Speer, owe James Jenkins an apology... Now, here's another tidbit. I have met Jenkins and really liked him but have been aware for ten years or so that his recollections are subject to change when under pressure from researchers. Now, here's the part the Kevens of this world would like to hide...that Jenkins' malleability was first exposed by David Lifton, not Pat Speer, and that Lifton interviewed Jenkins over 40 years ago and said that at that time Jenkins said the Ida Dox tracing of the back of the head photo was consistent with his recollections. So stop the theatrics, already... You can believe Jenkins' current claims, or not... But if you choose to believe his current claims, you CAN NOT say you believe his claims support Doug Horne's theory, when he insists they do not... Speer fraudulently misrepresents that I agree that James Jenkins was pointing to the top of his head in the William Law screenshot, and attempts a wider variety of straw man arguments and red herrings to deflect attention from his lies about James Jenkins which I have been showcasing... ___________ 5-28-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537022 Except... His post proved me correct. James Jenkins said...numerous times...that the open hole was at the top of the head... Speer again erroneously claims that the screenshot of James Jenkins from the William Law video proved he is pointing to the top of his head (when it is obvious Jenkins is pointing to the back of his head), and claims Jenkins said "NUMEROUS TIMES" that the open hole was at the top of the head, but when Sandy Larsen and I call for Speer to provide just ONE example of Jenkins stating that the open hole was at the top of JFK's head, Speer is unable to come up with even ONE example... ___________ 5-28-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537008 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. Speer again tries to float the screenshot of James Jenkins from the William Law video as proof Jenkins is pointing to the top of his head (when Jenkins is actually pointing to the back of his head), and attempts more Doug Horne deflection... ___________ 5-30-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537225 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? My response to this post of Speer's was to post William Law's response to his interpretation of the William Law screenshot from Law's video interview of Jenkins, as follows: ___________ 5-31-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537289 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? Mr. Speer made a full on frontal assault on James Jenkins's credibility in his last post on this matter, essentially calling him a fabricator in a variety of ways, and all of these allegations can be defended, but after spending three days on this post virtually around the clock I am just going to conclude with the response of James Jenkins himself to all of this, which was to say that it's so ludicrous it doesn't deserve a response:

Mr. @Greg Doudna, I have no information with which to assess the veracity of your factual claim about any disciplinary action that has been taken against Mr. Speer by the Administrators of this forum, but the following factual claims that you have made about me could have been fact checked and determined to be false with a minimal amount of due diligence on your part using the information and links that are on my forum profile alone, and as such are blatant factual misrepresentations on your part that are false, either deliberately, or as the result of your willful negligence: "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." "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." "But crush him, blacken his name, silence him from saying what he thinks." "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." "Has published nothing on the JFK assassination." "Just advocacy of a certain existing interpretation 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." It is a violation of the rules of this forum to disseminate false information. This post constitutes a warning that if you fail to make the needed corrections to the factual record, as set forth above, within twelve (12) hours of the time of this post, I will report these violations to the forum administrators, and you may be more severely sanctioned for failing to self-correct at the time of this warning.

" Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Mr. Ceulemans?

Mr. Doudna, I've now collected all the examples of lies that Pat Speer has told about James Jenkins on this forum during the last fourteen years and have found that he didn't use the specific word "liar" in any of them. He used about a half a dozen synonyms for "liar," and in many more instances, said the same thing by implication and rhetorical device. Now I can see that you think you are on a roll with your new armchair lay-lawyer gig, but I have to tell you that your personal regard for the word "liar" carries no weight with me. I don't know what they taught you about that particular word in divinity school, but I can assure you, that in all other branches of education, it is just a word, and is no more serious nor severe than its synonyms. My main point about lies is that when it comes to James Jenkins (and many other JFKA witnesses), Mr. Speer has been telling falsehoods about James Jenkins for at least fourteen years, and I can prove it. And I can also prove that Speer has been alleging that James Jenkins is a fabricator for the last fourteen years as well. It's as serious to me when Speer uses synonyms, implication, and rhetorical devices as it would be if he used the specific word "liar," and I could really care less whether you agree or not. To me you are just the chief defender and enabler of Pat Speer's lies on this thread, which is to me just about as serious of an offense as Speer has himself perpetrated against James Jenkins and the JFKA research community at large, and I really think some public apologies are due and owing from you as well (By the way, the word "conscience" coming out of your keyboard really makes a joke of the whole concept, don't you think?). And if it so happens that you don't like any of this, or don't appreciate the high esteem in which it is so obvious that I hold you, well then, you can just sue me.

Mr. Speer, nothing you state above has any credibility. William Law has made it clear that James Jenkins was touching the back of his head in that one photo you are cherry picking out of three, and James Jenkins himself says your claims are "ludicrous" (See instant message from William Law, below): You have been repeatedly asked by Sandy Larsen and myself to provide just ONE example of what you have claimed are the "NUMEROUS TIMES" that James Jenkins supposedly said that he saw a hole in the top of JFK's head, and you have been unable to produce even ONE. Your other claim is that James Jenkins prior to 2016 claimed that rather than there being a "large gaping hole in the back of [JFK's] head," Jenkins claimed the back of the head was "intact." I ask that you produce ONE example of James Jenkins claiming that rather than there being a "large gaping hole in the back of [JFK's] head," Jenkins claimed the back of the head was "intact." Just ONE.

@Sandy Larsen, with regard to the above assertion of Mr. Doudna (highlighted in bold red) -- who has obviously made himself the chief defender of Pat Speer's lies on this thread -- I yesterday responded to his frantic posts calling for citations by letting him know I would present him with an eight-year history of Pat Speer lying about James Jenkins in his posts on this forum, and having started to catalogue those lies this morning, the still ongoing project has turned into a FOURTEEN-YEAR LONG HISTORY OF MR. SPEER LYING ABOUT THE HISTORICAL CLAIMS OF JAMES JENKINS IN POSTS ON THIS FORUM. So that fourteen-year history will be posted just as soon as I have completed it. One of the things that became overwhelmingly clear to me as I researched the history of Mr. Speer's lies about James Jenkins on this forum, is that all along, you and many others have made efforts to educate Pat Speer about the error and illegitimacy of his fraudulent misrepresentations about Jenkins; so Mr. Doudna can be assured that Speer has absolutely no excuse for persisting with these lies for all of these years. Meanwhile, I have been watching for Mr. Doudna to post just ONE example of James Jenkins ever claiming that he saw a hole on the top of JFK's head (as Mr. Speer has been completely unable to do so, and it seems to me that as the chief defender of Pat Speer's lies on this thread, it is the least he can do, especially considering that he is calling upon me for citations). And finally, last night I received from William Law a comment from James Jenkins on these lies that Speer has been telling about him: James Jenkins wrote "it doesn't deserve a comment it is so ludicrous."

I've been at my computer all day and I'm calling it a night. I could care less how anxious you are for an immediate answer, you can just stew on it all night for all I care. Pat Speer has been claiming that James Jenkins started lying about his descriptions of the head wound starting in 2016, and so I've got eight years of posts to go through starting tomorrow morning. If you don't like it, then sue me...

Your interpolation does not prove anything. It is an interpolation (my understanding is that you have stolen it from another researcher, so it isn't even your interpolation). A computer is guessing about the intervening images. I've brought to your attention the limitations of interpolations a half dozen times prior to today and, as usual, you still don't get it.