Keven Hofeling

First of all, all of the links in your post are broken, which may not be that important if they are links only to the screenshots on your website. What I am really interested in seeing are the videos that the screenshots of James Jenkins touching his head on your website are from. I've been unable to locate those videos on the web, but if the screenshots of Dr. McClelland's hand gestures that are on your website are to serve as a guide, then we can be relatively certain that your James Jenkins examples are deceptive, because I've already determined -- as you well know -- that your Dr. McClelland screenshots are intended to deceive: For those desiring verification of this fact, see the first post in the following thread: And as it seems that this thread was inspired by my post on another thread which catalogues a litany of factual misrepresentations you have made during the last six months alone -- https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30407-favorite-author-jim-dieugenio-favorite-researcher-pat-speer/?do=findComment&comment=535245 -- and as it is too late for me to address the above in great detail tonight, I am just going to start out by here reposting the segment of my post from the other thread concerning your next to most recent factual misrepresentations about James Jenkins: ________________ 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: ________________

First of all, the link you provided to the declassified history of BRIDGEHEAD AKA HawkeyWorks is broken, and inaccessible. Secondly, the Hawkeyeworks history that I am interested in, and that you should also be curious about, is the still classified history involving the Zapruder film that the CIA refuses to release to Doug Horne: Doug Horne wrote: "...“Hawkeyeworks” Explained: After the Homer McMahon interview was released in 1998, JFK researchers loyal to the concept of an authentic Zapruder film that is “ground truth” in the Kennedy assassination downplayed the importance of the “Hawkeyeworks” story, either doubting its existence because there was no documentary proof, or alternately saying that the “Hawkeyeworks” lab was solely dedicated to U-2 and Corona satellite photography. But these critics were wrong on both counts. First, Dino Brugioni, during his 2009 and 2011 interviews with Peter Janney and me, not only confirmed the existence of the state-of-the-art Kodak lab in Rochester used by the CIA for various classified purposes, but confirmed that he visited the place more than once, including once prior to the JFK assassination. (He also confirmed its existence in his recent book, Eyes in the Sky, on page 364.) Second, Dino Brugioni made clear to me, when I interviewed him in July of 2011, that the “Hawkeye Plant” (as he called it) was an enormous state-of-the-art private sector laboratory founded and run by Kodak, which performed far more tasks than “just” Corona satellite and U-2 “special order” film services. He said that the Hawkeye Plant was involved in developing new film products and in manufacturing and testing special film products of all kinds, including new motion picture films, and that it definitely had the capability to process motion pictures. He did not see such equipment himself, but was told by Ed Green, a high-ranking Kodak manager at “Hawkeyeworks” with whom he had a relationship of trust, that the “Hawkeye Plant” could, and did, definitely process motion pictures. When repeatedly questioned about this capability by Peter Janney throughout the 2009 interviews, Brugioni said with great reverence, on several occasions, “They could do anything.”[21] 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. The plain facts are these: (1) the 8 mm (already slit!) camera-original Zapruder film was delivered to NPIC late on Saturday evening, 11/23/63, and the two Secret Service officials who brought it to NPIC for the making of briefing boards left with the film at about 3 AM Sunday morning; and (2) a 16 mm, unslit version of the Zapruder film was returned to NPIC the next night, after dark, on Sunday evening, 11/24/63; and its courier (“Bill Smith”) said it had been processed at “Hawkeyeworks,” and that he had brought it directly to NPIC in Washington, D.C. from Rochester (using the unmistakable code word “Hawkeyeworks”) himself. “Double 8” home movies which have already been slit at the processing facility do not miraculously “reassemble” themselves from two 25-foot strips 8 mm in width, and connected with a splice in the middle, into 16 mm wide unslit double 8 films. A new Zapruder film was clearly created at “Hawkeyeworks” in Rochester, in an optical printer. Bill Smith told the truth when he said the film he carried had been developed there at “Hawkeyeworks;” he lied when he said that it was the camera-original film taken by the photographer in Dallas. If “Hawkeyeworks” truly had the physical capability “to do anything,” as Ed Green informed Dino Brugioni, then all that would have been required that weekend would have been to bring in some experienced personnel—an animator or two, and a visual effects director—experienced in the “black arts” of Hollywood. Those personnel, if not already on-site, employed at “Hawkeyeworks,” could have been brought into Rochester on Saturday, November 23rd, the same day the JFK autopsy photographs were being developed in Washington, D.C. at Naval Photographic Center, Anacostia. The JFK autopsy photos developed on Saturday (per Robert Knudsen’s 1978 HSCA deposition transcript) would have provided the guide for the image alteration necessary on the Zapruder film the next day, on Sunday. The JFK autopsy photos document the massive head wound created by clandestine, post mortem surgery on JFK’s head wounds at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and would have provided a rough guide for the massive head wound in the top and right side of the skull that had to be painted onto selected Zapruder film frames the next day, on Sunday. No such parietal-temporal-frontal wound was seen at Parkland Hospital in Dallas by any of the treatment staff the day Kennedy was shot and treated there, but it had to be added to selected Zapruder film frames, to match the illicit post mortem cranial surgery at Bethesda that was being misrepresented in the autopsy photos as “damage from the assassin’s bullet.”[22] In addition to painting on a false wound, of course, the forgers at “Hawkeyeworks” would have had to obscure—black out—the real exit wound, in the right rear of JFK’s head, that was seen in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital. (More on this below.)..." http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

Kevin Balch wrote: As Dino Brugioni stated himself, he had not been tasked with any kind of content analysis of the film. Brugioni was ordered to make briefing boards and calculate the timing of the scenes in the film, nothing more, and that is exactly what the NPIC crew did during the first briefing board session. You can hear Dino Brugioni himself answer your question at 5:42 of the following video, which I have cued up for you in advance: The question that is really most pertinent to the first briefing board session is whether or not Brugioni was working with the camera-original Zapruder film, or whether, as Zapruder film authenticity apologists claim, Brugioni was only working with one of the first-day copies of the film. The best proof that Brugioni was in fact working with the camera-original Zapruder film is that the film that was brought to him by the Secret Service was an 8mm film (the first day copies were in 16mm format). And how do we know for sure that the film delivered to Brugioni was in fact in 8mm format? Because CIA NPIC did not have an 8mm film projector, and Brugioni had to have a local merchant called to open his store the evening of November 24, 1963, so that NPIC could purchase a projector. At 1:32 of the following video (which I have cued up for you in advance), you can hear Brugioni himself describe receiving the 8mm film, and continue on to tell the story about having to wake up a merchant to purchase a projector: At 6:08 of the following video (which I have cued up for you in advance), Doug Horne asks Brugioni whether he believes he had the camera-original film or a copy, and why, and Brugioni answers that he believed he had the original because of the fact that the Secret Service agents were personally accompanying and closely guarding the film, and because there was no packaging accompanying the film to indicate that it had been developed as a copy: Kevin Balch wrote: Homer McMahon had also been told that he was working with the camera-original film, and was not asked to analyze it for alterations, nor to perform content analysis of the film, so he had no reason to look for alterations. Kevin Balch wrote: You make it sound as if "the alterationists," as you put it, have done something or not done something in an attempt to conceal McMahon's dementia soliloquy, but that is just not the case. It is right there in the transcript. If "the alterationists" concealed it, then why do you know about it? And as to the dementia/wet brain claims themselves, it's not difficult to figure out what happened: The ARRB first contacted Homer McMahon on June 12. 1997, at which point he made it clear that he was sure he was working with the camera-original film which the Secret Service had accompanied to his briefing board session a couple of days after the assassination, and he was told that the ARRB would soon be contacting him again. Before the in-person interview conducted by the ARRB on July 14, 1997, McMahon was either advised by his former CIA employer, or decided on his own accord to feed the ARRB a barium dose (otherwise known as "a poison pill") for purposes of discrediting himself to protect the CIA during his in-person interview by making claims that impugned his own memory, which he then did, with the effect that people like you are using the claim to discredit the testimony. When NPIC employee Ben Hunter was later interviewed by the ARRB, he had already gotten the message, or thought of it himself, and claimed that his memory was "fuzzy," and that "it would be better to talk to Homer McMahon." Wouldn't Ben Hunter know about McMahon's drug addiction/alcoholism/wet brain/dementia? I assume that both Hunter and McMahon retired in good standing from the CIA's NPIC -- as I can find nothing to the contrary, and the CIA has to my knowledge not disseminated contrary information to discredit their testimony -- so the claims don't quite pass the tummy test. But perhaps the best indication that the claims are indeed "a poison pill" designed to discredit the testimony is the transcript of the testimony itself, which does not read like the statements of an individual disabled by wet brain and dementia. To the contrary, Homer McMahon spoke intelligently and in great detail to the ARRB on July 14, 1997, as can be seen from the transcript excerpts below. So, in short, I'm just not buying the dementia/wet brain claims, which are ultimately coming from the CIA attempting to deny its involvement in the alteration of the Zapruder film and the cover-up of the assassination, a component of all of this which apparently has not occurred to you. ____________ Doug Horne wrote: "...NPIC EVENT # 2 (Presided over by Homer McMahon) As stated earlier, as a member of the ARRB staff, I interviewed Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter three times each between June and August of 1997.[18] A written call report was produced following each interview; additionally, the second of three Homer McMahon interviews—on July 14, 1997—was tape recorded, and that recording may be obtained from the National Archives, along with all of the written interview reports. In May of 2012, I completed a verbatim transcript of the audiotaped interview with Mr. McMahon on July 14, 1997. The summary below recapitulates the totality of the information provided by McMahon and Hunter over the course of all of their interviews in the summer of 1997. Time and date: The strong and final consensus of opinion between the two men was that the NPIC event they participated in took place “about two days after” JFK’s assassination, and “before the funeral.” [The funeral was Monday afternoon, November 25th.] They both agreed that their NPIC activity took place before the funeral of the 35th President. McMahon initially recalled the event as taking place 1 or 2 days after the assassination, and Hunter initially recalled it as taking place 2 or 3 days after the assassination; but both men consistently agreed that their NPIC activity definitely occurred prior to President Kennedy’s funeral. The work commenced after dark, and lasted all night long. [Note: The home movie of the assassination brought to NPIC for McMahon and Hunter to work with was not copied as a motion picture; nor did NPIC even have the capability to do so.]..." https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ ------------------------------------------------------------- EXCERPTS FROM HOMER MCMAHON INTERVIEW REGARDING THE ZAPRUDER FILM BEING AT HAWKEYEWORKS IN ROCHESTER, NEW YORK Homer A. McMahon (Former CIA/NPIC Employee) conducted on July 14, 1997 at Archives II in College Park, Maryland. Interviewers: Douglas P. Horne and T. Jeremy Gunn "...McMahon (9:55): OK. But the best that I remember, of how I came to work on this project---and, of course, we all heard of, of, you know, that motorcade, where Kennedy got killed, and I think we shut up shop and went home---af---after that. And it was within the next two days, a chap was introduced to me---and I was sworn to his secrecy, it had nothing to do with the Agency’s secrecy and, and he was, to the best of my knowledge, introduced as “Bill Smith.” - 4 - Horne: “Bill Smith” of---what? McMahon: Of [the] Secret Service, he was an agent. And he had, he had gotten a roll of film directly from the person that had photographed it, who called the Secret Service and told them that he thought he had that on film---and he shot it with a little ‘Brownie,’ ah, double 8 [camera]. And he took it, took it to Rochester, and---we had a division up there, I won’t go into that--- but they processed the film---it was Ek---it was Kodachrome (I think, I or II, the daylight version, whichever it was), and it was double 8 [film]. And, after he got it processed, they told him there that we were probably the only place that had the equipment that could do what he wanted to, ah, take every frame on there--- [chuckling]---of the entire event, and, and make, ah, the best possible quality reproduction. Horne: When you say, “They told him,” who do you mean, ah---? McMahon (12:04): Well---ah---heh, heh---well, Eastman Kodak had, had contracts with the U.S. government, and if you want to know, you can go through the CIA, they’ll tell you [unclear]. OK, but he, he got the film processed, and he brought it to us, and he, and three other people, ah, timed the film, for the---through observation you could tell where the gunshots actually caused the hits and the slumps. We didn’t know anything about any audio---ah, it was just visual. And we timed it and determined, where the, the time between the, ah---physically timed it, with a stopwatch---ah, where the gunshot “hits” hit. And we, we, we, we went from, I think, maybe two 7 frames before the first hit, and then we hit every single frame--- through, and we only, he only counted three hits, possibly four--- ah, couldn’t tell, I think, when, when Connally got hit. It was obvious when, when he [JFK] got hit the first time, and then the second time, as his head [was] going off into the angle, up, and---..." "... Horne: That’s all we are trying to do, for the record, is to clarify that when you said that statement, were you referring to this particular film, or other jobs? McMahon: OK, I---this---I had---I had other clearances; ah, but, but none of these clearances that were given to me under the CIA or other clearances that I held for other government agencies, this was under strictly, a---I was told that none of this could be divulged to anyone (that we had it, that we did it), and I know that it was being used for a briefing, but I don’t know who they briefed on it. My only guess---[was] that we normally briefed the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the National Reconnaissance Committee; and the President of the United States, from the work that I did. And I didn’t do any of the analysis; I just did the color part that was used in the briefing boards and the teleprompters and that kind of work. And it was also distributed under different Top Secret classifications, to the Community, go ahead---..." "...Horne (18:19): OK. Would you allow me to, ah, test your recollection on something, the firmness of it? Ah, you, you said a moment ago that you thought this was, ah, within two days of the assassination. Ah, is there any particular reason why you associate it as being that close to the assassination, any particular other events, or--- McMahon: I think, I think I was told---that this---to get the film from the individual; take it and get it processed; come back---was, was, a couple of days---I’m not sure. I’m not---I don’t know [if I can] recall that. Horne: Do you recall whether this work that you did was before the funeral, or after the funeral, of the President? [Transcriber’s note: President Kennedy was assassinated on Friday, November 22nd, 1963; and his funeral was on Monday, November 25th, 1963.] McMahon (18:56): I’m pretty sure it was before...." "...Horne (28:23): How certain are you that Mr. Smith said he went down to pick up the film from the person who took it, and then took it to Rochester? Are you--- McMahon: I know he took it to Rochester. I’m not certain other than I think he said that---that it--- that he got it from the original person himself, but I’m not positive. I, I am positive that he said that he took it to Rochester---hand-carried it, got it processed, and then they guided him back to us to do the--- Horne: So--- McMahon: Rochester wasn’t set up to do what we were set up to do. Horne: In the sense that you had the big enlarger and they did not? Is that what--- McMahon: We had a complete ‘world beyond’ facility--- Horne: OK Horne (42:08): Before we move along, and before I show you the notes that the Archives has---ah, let, let me revisit with you, ah, what exactly did Mr. Smith say in regard to secrecy or nondisclosure, ah, regarding this event, can you tell me that story again? McMahon: I know that, that my immediate supervisor was not allowed in the room---that it was so sensitive, and he had all the tickets---and he was not allowed in the room. It was strictly on a “need to-know” 19 [basis], do the job, and get it out, and no one knew about it, to my knowledge. No record--- Gunn: [Interrupting] Just---just so the record’s clear, when you say “all the tickets,” you mean all the security clearances that he had? He had a lot of security clearances? McMahon: He had clearance, ah, equal to or [the] same as I had, but he was not allowed---it was not, it was not the CIA, or---a---I held other clearances: Atomic Energy, ah, National Security Agency, and, and it was not under any of these. Gunn: Was there any other compartment, or was it just with a name, such as, ah--- McMahon: I---There was no code name on it that I know of, and if there was, I couldn’t tell you anyway [chuckling]. Horne (43:48): Did, did Mr. Smith ever say to you, ah, “This is classified at a certain level”--- - 12 - McMahon: Yes. He said it is definitely classified on a “need-to know;” and he didn’t give me anything other than it was---that I was sworn to secrecy, and I had---I don’t know whether I had to sign the document, I don’t recall that. But I do know that it could not be divulged. Horne: Did he give you a level of classification, like Confidential or Secret--- McMahon: I have no---no, it did not have---he said it was above Top Secret---..." "...Gunn: OK, what Bill Smith said about what he already knew about the film and what it showed? McMahon (47:17): It---you didn’t---you, you didn’t---after it was processed, at Eastman Kodak; and it wasn’t in---it was not in the Kod[ak] factory---it was at “Hawkeyeworks.” Horne: Pardon me? 21 McMahon (47:30): There, there was another Top Secret lab--- Gunn (3:18): OK, and, ah, what did, ah, Mr. Smith say had happened to the film prior to the time that he brought it, in terms of processing, where it had been, and how it had been processed. McMahon (3:33): OK, because of expedite and the, the expedite part, is, is in---they wanted to find out what happened, and they had, they had film, that was generously turned into them by a very patriotic person, and [they were] told that he would give it to them, because they--- it might help in the investigation. That---this is what, what he was told---what I was told---and that it was of the utmost urgency. So he hand-carried it through; and flew to Rochester; and got it processed at the---the processing division there, and they were made aware that he was coming. Ah, and did it immediately for him, and I also think they made duplications of that, which I was told, and then he came back [to Washington D.C.], because they told him they couldn’t do what he wanted to get done, and that NPIC could do it. And it fell in our laps, and we did it. Gunn (4:55): What---when you said, “They couldn’t get done what needed to be done,” did you mean the enlargements, or was there some other---? McMahon: They, they didn’t have a, a laboratory that, that could do the quality of work that he- 14 -wanted. He wanted maximum sharpness, the most “seeability” that, that he could get of the imagery, and that we were set up to do: and we were well beyond the state-of the- art in, in the quality that was turned out. Gunn: For the film of the, the assassination, was it your understanding that anything more had been done to it other than developing the original film and making some prints of the original film? 23 McMahon: The prints, the prints were duplications of the original--- Gunn: Film. McMahon: Yeah. Gunn: Had anything else been done to the film, besides--- McMahon: No, no one else had gotten it---to my knowledge. Horne (5:52): Was it your understanding that Mr. Smith had come directly to Washington from Rochester? McMahon: Yeah---mmm-hmmm, yes. He’d gotten off the airplane and came from National Airport directly to, to our building. Gunn (6:06): Just so we’re, we’re clear on something---it was our understanding that the film had been processed by Kodak; ah, when you said it was done in Rochester, it---was that an inference that you drew, when they said it had been processed by Kodak, or did the---did he mention Rochester? McMahon: Ah, you’re, you’re getting on classified grounds here, ah, that I can’t answer that question. I know, but I can’t talk to you about that. There was another Top Secret lab, that the government--- you--- Gunn: Ah, if you’re uncomfortable talking about it, we, we can stop that here, so that---that’s fine. But this is something that would---that is important for us to be able to do, so we can go, ah, back to the Agency, and talk to them, so [unclear]--- McMahon: No, you can do that back through the Agency, and I know that hasn’t been down graded, to, to---public domain. [Transcriber’s note: McMahon was referring here to the code-name “Hawkeyeworks,” for the Top Secret lab at Rochester.] Gunn: Ah--- Horne (7:12): I think there’s a way to rephrase the question, so that it’s ah, not a classified---so that you don’t perceive a classified intent. I, I think the way to rephrase the question might be, did Mr. Smith say, ah, “This was developed at Kodak?” or did he say, “This was developed at Rochester?”24 McMahon: Again, again, I know where it was done; I know who did it. And I’m not going to answer[chuckling]--- Horne: Is there any chance that, ah, where it was done was at a Kodak lab in Dallas? That’s another way of raising this question. McMahon: To my knowledge, no--- McMahon (8:08): When you’re in bed with the Yellow God[Transcriber’s note: the primary color in the Kodak logo is yellow]---we had their top scientists and photochemists and optical people working in the ‘world beyond; ’we had their people---I shouldn’t even talk about it, I’m sorry. And there was a definite link, on the- 15 -national level, where we had “the best there was” working with us. Gunn (9:01): Would it be fair to say that there was, ah, another facility--- McMahon: Yes. Gunn: ---where [it was] your understanding that this was processed--- McMahon: Yes. Gunn: ---and that that facility was mentioned to you by name, so that you knew--- McMahon: Yes. Gunn: ---where it was--- McMahon: Yes. Gunn: [Is] That fair [garbled] to say--- McMahon: Yes. Gunn: OK, but in terms of the name of it we don’t need that, but just--- there, but, there was reference made to a particular place--- McMahon: But, I don’t know if there was any downgrading [of the classification level of that facility’s code name, “Hawkeyeworks”]. “National Photographic Interpretation Center” was Top Secret--- you could not say it. You could say “NPIC,” and that was Secret. Horne: I see. That’s--- 25 McMahon: And my cover was that “I worked for the CIA”---I did not work for NPIC. And the military that worked there, worked for the military---whether it was Navy, Army, Air Force, or whatever--- they did not work for [unclear] [Transcriber’s note: subsequent, extended interviews---in 2009 and 2011---of Dino Brugioni, NPIC’s Chief Information Officer, by researchers Peter Janney and Douglas Horne, established that Mr. Brugioni presided over an entirely different “Zapruder film briefing board event” at NPIC the night before Mr. McMahon did. The product created at Mr. Brugioni’s event was entirely different, and the attendees present were entirely different, as was the format of the film delivered for the making of selective enlargements. Furthermore, Mr. Brugioni, whose event commenced the night before McMahon’s, on Saturday night, 11/23/63, was the Duty Officer of record at NPIC the entire weekend following President Kennedy’s assassination: Friday, Saturday, Sunday, as well as on Monday (which became a national holiday because of President 39 Kennedy’s funeral). Mr. Brugioni did not participate in the second NPIC event, which commenced on Sunday night (i.e., the McMahon event), and as Duty Officer, he did not call anyone into work at NPIC on Sunday night, - 24 - 11/24/63. The McMahon event--- the second NPIC event that weekend---took place without the NPIC Duty Officer of record (Mr. Brugioni) being informed, or involved, in any way; we now know that the NPIC Duty Officer (Brugioni) was completely bypassed by those who arranged and conducted the McMahon event, and a completely different NPIC work crew was assembled the second time around (that is, Mr. McMahon and Mr. Hunter, and Navy Captain Sands, in lieu of Mr. Brugioni’s team from the night before). All of these things were unknown by the ARRB staff, and by Mr. McMahon, in July of 1997 when this interview was conducted. Similarly, Mr. Brugioni was not aware, until 2009 (when he was interviewed by Peter Janney), that there had been a second “Zapruder film briefing board event” at NPIC that weekend, following his own event. The “Brugioni event” at NPIC is discussed at length in Volume IV of the transcriber’s book, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, on pages 1230-1239, and 1323-1334. This interview transcript can only be properly appreciated when one knows its true historical context; we now know that there were two compartmentalized operations involving the Zapruder film at the CIA’s NPIC the weekend of the assassination, and that the McMahon event was the second of these two operations.] https://dickatlee.com/issues/assassinations/jfk/homer_mcmahon_transcript_reformat.pdf ____________

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:

Here, in pertinent part, is a fairly typical example of one of Speer's slanderous assaults on the work and reputation of Dr. David Mantik: ____________ https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24550-jfk-x-ray-where-is-rear-bullet-entry-point/?do=findComment&comment=367594 ____________ The following was Dr. David Mantik's response: ____________ https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24550-jfk-x-ray-where-is-rear-bullet-entry-point/?do=findComment&comment=368084 James DiEugenio wrote: Since I don't think it's fair to say someone is misleading people when they are not here to reply, I am posting Dave Mantik's reply to that accusation: Speer’s Semantic Swamp—a Response by David W Mantik January 7, 2018 “He who has never sinned is less reliable than he who has only sinned once.” –Nassim Nicholas Taleb (Antifragile, 2014) Pat Speer wants us to believe that (in my work) the White Patch covered the Harper Fragment (HF) bone defect. But I have never said—or written—that. In Speer’s Education Forum post of Wednesday (edited at 02:20 PM, probably on January 2, 2018) he lists many quotations about my work, including these descriptors about the posterior skull defect: “hole” (14 times), “exit wound” (4), “tissue” (4), “defect” (5), “blowout” (3), and “blowout of brain” (1). However, only two of these quotes come directly from me, and both of these use “tissue”—the word “bone” is never mentioned. Speer even confesses that he drew his own conclusion about the role of bone: As he also claimed the Harper fragment had exploded from the back of the head, moreover, it seemed obvious Mantik had simultaneously claimed the white patch covered the hole from which the Harper fragment had exploded. My earliest recorded description of the White Patch appears in Assassination Science (1998), edited by James Fetzer, which can be found online: http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf (p. 153). Although the White Patch was a central focus at that New York press conference (October 1993), the HF was not mentioned. After all, the point of my presentation was the artefactual nature of the White Patch—not its purpose. Speer even admits this: Mantik's writings show that he never mentioned the Harper fragment in his early articles, and that he first claimed it fit into the middle of the back of Kennedy's skull in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000). On the Education Forum (2010), I stated (as Speer quotes): "I have never demonstrated exactly where on the lateral skull X-ray the HF would appear, but it would be at the very rear." In my e-book (available on Amazon), JFK’s Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis and a New Analysis of the Harper Fragment, see Figures 15A and 15B (also shown here): These are X-ray images are from an experiment performed by Gary Aguilar, MD, in December 1997, which convincingly demonstrate how far posteriorly the occiput would appear on a lateral X-ray. (Note the red arrow, which identifies the metal pentagon on both views.) As I state in the e-book, in February-March 1993 (nearly 25 years ago now) I had anticipated Aguilar’s demonstration by 4 years. I had used lead wires to outline the HF on the occiput of an authentic skull—on both AP and lateral X-ray views. These original X-rays are still in my files. I am not at home now, or I would also post these; the 1993 dates are clearly displayed on them. [The three-headshot scenario—first articulated by Doug Horne—is also discussed in my e-book.] That there was indeed a posterior blowout (or hole, or defect, or exit wound) of brain tissue is clear from the Parkland Hospital witnesses. But the objective evidence for this missing brain derives from data obtained directly from the JFK autopsy X-rays at the National Archives, as cited in “Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination: The Brain Enigma,” by David W. Mantik and Cyril H. Wecht (The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X (2003), edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease): One final point is remarkable: the [OD] measurements showed that on the right side, at the level of the cerebellum, only about 30% of the normally expected brain tissue remained. This book is available at Amazon, and can even be purchased for e-readers. To summarize: The defect left by the missing HF derives from the upper occiput—as I showed in my 1993 X-rays. On the lateral JFK skull X-ray, this missing bone lies posterior to the White Patch. But there was indeed a posterior blowout—of brain tissue. It should be emphasized that the missing occipital bone probably included smaller bone fragments just superior to the HF. Furthermore, when McClelland’s (adjacent) bone flap swung open, the hole in the bone was appreciably larger. (See my e-book for further discussion of these issues.) Regarding Speer, my previous critique (2010) of his work is here: https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-autopsy-x-rays-david-mantik-vs-pat-speer Included in that critique is Speer’s “Rogues’ Gallery” of 29 researchers (plus all the doctors in the 1992 ABA Mock Trial) who made mistakes in this JFK case. My name is present, but the ever-infallible Speer is missing. A definitive, albeit somewhat droll, corollary site (2016) is here: http://assassinationofjfk.net/jfk-windmills-pat-Speer/ Highlighted in red at that site are disconcerting questions for Speer. In the nearly two years since they appeared, he has persistently evaded them. This site also includes a summary by Mike Chesser, MD, a neurologist, who corroborated my conclusions after his own visits to the Archives. He also visited the JFK library in Boston. Here are just two (now very old) paradoxes for Speer to contemplate: 1. The lateral JFK skull X-rays show essentially no brain in a very large frontal area (on both left and right sides), yet the brain photographs show virtually no missing brain on either side. How can this be? 2. How did that 6.5 mm object arise—especially since it was not seen at the autopsy by dozens of witnesses? My peer-reviewed paper about this 6.5 mm object, with an explanation for it, is here: https://themantikview.org/ My own website is here: https://themantikview.org/

PAT SPEER'S "ANSWERS" TO DR. DAVID MANTIK'S TWENTY QUESTIONS https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22739-the-jfk-windmills-of-pat-speer/?do=findComment&comment=327769

Dr. David Mantik is not a member of this forum, so when Pat Speer regurgitates his ongoing smear campaign against Dr. Mantik (which he does relentlessly and frequently) there are forum members who defend Dr. Mantik; and interestingly enough, Speer interprets this as being a massive and sinister conspiracy against him. But there was a time when Dr. Mantik did respond to Speer's slander of his work through individuals who are members of this forum, as well as presented a list of questions for Speer, most of which Speer has stubbornly refused to answer ever since. To alleviate Speer's apparent fear of a massive conspiracy against him by Mantik defenders, here is one of the defenses Dr. Mantik himself presented through a forum member in 2018, and it should be interesting to see whether Speer will now respond to Dr. Mantik's questions after all of these years of slandering him on nearly a daily basis: _______________ https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24550-jfk-x-ray-where-is-rear-bullet-entry-point/?do=findComment&comment=368229 Speer’s Semantic Swamp—a Second Response by David W Mantik January 17, 2018 “Smear [aka Speer] campaigns, if you can survive them, help enormously…. There is a visible selection bias: why did he attack you instead of someone else…? “My son, I am very disappointed in you. I never hear anything wrong said about you. You have proven yourself incapable of generating envy.” --Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragile (2014) This is a further response to Speer’s Education Forum post of Wednesday (edited at 02:20 PM, probably on January 2, 2018). Most of the following issues were lifted from “The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer: A Sorrowful Knight Errant in the Land of ‘Education’ ” at http://assassinationofjfk.net/jfk-win dmills-pat-speer/ 1. Does Speer acknowledge that the skull defect extended into the frontal bone, all the way to the hairline—as both Mantik and Fitzpatrick have reported? 2. Neurosurgeon Kemp Clark reported that the skull defect extended posteriorly to just above the EOP—where he saw cerebellum, as did a total of nine Parkland physicians. Does Quixote truly doubt all nine of these physicians? 3. What does Speer make of Stringer’s statements—about not taking the brain photos? If not Stringer, then who did take those brain photos? 4. What the Parkland MDs said was something like this: If the scalp had been pulled down to cover the hole then, sure, the photos were legitimate. Short of that though, why did so many Parkland MDs initially fail to recognize the autopsy photos? [See the documentary, “The Parkland Doctors” (2018).] 5. In my online critique of Speer’s work, I pointed out that his explanation of the 6.5 mm object leads to a profound paradox: If the Outer Table Fragment (which lies on the posterior skull on the lateral X-ray) does not correlate (in 3D) to the 6.5 mm object (on the AP X-ray), then where do we see the correlate of the Outer Table Fragment on the AP X-ray? After all this time, when will Speer finally confront that profound paradox? 6. In general, what does Speer really think about optical density data? 7. It is well established that witnesses are reliable if three conditions are met: A) recollection is prompt, the items recalled are significant, and D) the items are not too complex. So why does Speer needlessly confound this issue? 8. Cairns, who held the Harper bone in his hand, noted “inner markings that run around the base of the skull” [emphasis added] on the inside of HF. How does Speer explain Cairns’s comments—and why would all three pathologists agree on occipital bone? 9. After all these years, where has Speer posted his own reconstruction of the skull? 10. What does Speer make of Gary Aguilar’s list of occipital witnesses? 11. Why is this occipital site the only anatomic location—in all the autopsy photos—that appears 2D? [Robert Groden concurs.] 12. What does Speer make of Humes’s comment that the red spot does not represent a wound? 13. Based on remarkably detailed X-ray observations at NARA, Dr. Chesser has recently reported minute metal fragments embedded in the anterior skull. How does Quixote explain this in his scenario of four posterior bullets—and no frontal bullet? Does he deny that these minute fragments are authentic? 14. And what about those motorcycle men, who describe lots of activity on Elm Street—activity that is not seen in the Z-film? [See the Preface to my e-book.] 15. It would also be very interesting to hear Speer explain how a White Patch can appear on both lateral X-rays, but totally vanish on the AP X-ray. 16. Did the HSCA really authenticate JFK’s autopsy photographs? 17. Also note that, for Speer to be correct (about the head wounds), we must not believe the statements of nearly all the Parkland physicians, or of the radiologist John Ebersole, or Tom Robinson (about the forehead wound), to say nothing of the paramedical witnesses from Bethesda (who saw the posterior skull defect). 18. Eight Bethesda MDs described the same posterior head wound that the Parkland MDs had seen: George Burkley, Robert Canada, John Ebersole, Calvin Galloway, Robert Karnei, Edward Kenny, David Osborne, and John Stover. When will Speer address the recollections of these eight Bethesda MDs? And then we still have two questions (from my immediately prior response) still pending: 19. The lateral JFK skull X-rays show essentially no brain in a very large frontal area (on both left and right sides), yet the brain photographs show virtually no missing brain on either side. How does Speer explain this? 20. How did that 6.5 mm object arise—especially since it was not seen at the autopsy by dozens of witnesses? Finally, I’ve offered advice to Speer before, which still stands. He might consider becoming a bit more disciplined before careening into verdicts. I would also encourage him to lay aside his ad hominem attacks. David Hackett Fischer (Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought 1970, p. 293) has critiqued such ad hominem attacks: "But an ad hominem debate is unlike tennis in one respect – it is a match which everybody loses: players, referees, spectators and all." These attacks do not lead to any new knowledge and they surely won't win Speer many new friends. In this tent (of researchers) we have acres of space for divergent views – but tolerance is always welcome. _______________ And the following is a more recent (2/1/2024) follow up from @Greg Burnham attempting to elicit a response out of Speer: _______________ https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30115-the-three-morticians-photographer-and-photo-technician-who-saw-the-large-back-of-head-wound-all-mistaken/?do=findComment&comment=527487 I would like for Pat Speer to pretend he is in grammar school, or high school, or college…and abide by the minimal standard of proof one learns at such institutions, namely: an assertion is unsupported unless measurable evidence of its validity is supplied. Pat Speer has not now—nor has he ever in the more than 15 years I have known of him—supplied any quantitative data to support his claim that Mantik, and now Chesser too, are wrong. Mantik and Chesser published the quantitative (measurable) data that they have relied upon to reach their conclusions. Pat Speer has not published any quantitative data to support his claim that they are mistaken. He just repeats and reposts pseudo-refutations that bear no actual substance. Moreover, no other researchers can “test” Speer's hypotheses (that alleges to refute Mantik) because he has not published the data for all to see. Could it be that he has no data? If he does have the data to support his conclusions, why hide it? And if he has no data, why are we even entertaining this absurdity? So, I challenge you, Pat: Publish the HARD quantitative data that you relied upon to reach your “scientific” conclusion that Mantik and Chesser are mistaken. After all, they published theirs. See: https://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/ by Michael Chesser, MD

There are up to 18 missing autopsy photographs. The following is from Doug Horne's Inside the Assassination Records Review Board:

I'm assuming you are referring to this autopsy photograph: This actually isn't an "official autopsy photo," it is a bootleg autopsy photograph. There are two sets of bootleg autopsy photographs that are publicly available, the Fox collection (liberated from the archives by former Secret Service agent James Fox [an image of the collection is attached to this comment]), and the Groden collection (liberated from the National Archives by assassination researcher Robert Groden when he served as a photographic consultant to the HSCA in the late 1970's). The particular photograph you are asking about is from the Groden collection. Doug Horne who served as the Chief Analyst for the Assassination Records Review Board -- where he had access to the "original" autopsy photographs -- has written that the publicly available bootleg autopsy photographs are the same images that are in the "original" collection, except that they are cropped differently, and are of comparatively degraded resolution. The following is the Fox collection: APPENDIX H. THE ORIGIN OF THE FOX PHOTOGRAPHS (INCLUDING F8) FROM 'JOHN F. KENNEDY'S HEAD WOUNDS: A FINAL SYNTHESIS AND A NEW ANALYSIS OF THE HARPER FRAGMENT' BY DR. DAVID MANTIK On November 23, 1963, James K. Fox was given the autopsy film holders by JFK's personal physician, Admiral George Burkley1 and told to develop them. According to Fox, Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman said to make himself copies [DM: i.e., Fox was to make copies for himself] as they would be history someday. He made three sets of black and white autopsy photo prints at the Secret Service lab. On November 27, 1963, additional official copies were made at the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC). In 1981, those pictures were sold to Mark Crouch. During this time copies of the photos were given to several JFK researchers. Fox died in 1987. David Lifton published the Fox set in Best Evidence (1988). Crouch retired from research in 1993 and sold his JFK collection, including negatives made from the photos, to Walt Brown, who continues to make them available to researchers. In 1992, the official autopsy photos were specifically exempted from the JFK Records Act and will not be released. Douglas Horne stated that, after viewing the original photos, he noted that the Fox unofficial photos are cropped differently and are degraded as compared to the originals in the National Archives but are basically the same.182 After reviewing the preceding comments, Walt Brown responded (e-mail of July 21, 2014) as follows. "The only uncertainty in the paragraph that I read was the specific identification of Roy Kellerman. When I purchased the "Fox Negatives," Mark Crouch gave me a booklet containing his entire story of how he learned of, and eventually came into possession of those negatives. On pp. 11--12, he states that it was Fox's statement that "his boss" who kept a set of negatives for himself and gave one to Fox. The "boss" is identified as Robert Bouck, who would have been Fox's boss at the Protective Research Section. Lifton stated it was Kellerman, but Crouch denied it, although not strongly. Crouch noted he had countless conversations about all of this with Fox, perhaps totaling 100, and Lifton only spoke to Fox once. Kellerman, in my view, would not have been in a position to have such negatives or to hand them over to anyone." ___________ And Doug Horne wrote the following about the bootleg autopsy photographs: ___________ https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/1206-students-question-autopsy-photos/?do=findComment&comment=8371 "The autopsy photographs have never been published by the USG. (The Warren Commission should have published them, but unfortunately decided not to introduce them as evidence, supposedly for reasons of "taste." Whether this was the real reason or not, their decision was inexcusable and has resulted in major controversy and charges of cover-up.) However, certain representative views have been published in various researcher books over the years, starting in 1988 in the trade paperback reissue of David Lifton's monumental tome "Best Evidence." They have also appeared in some of Harrison Livingstone's books, and in Robert Groden's "coffee table" book on the assassination, "The Killing of a President." The sources of the so-called "bootleg" autopsy photographs are twofold: (1) Secret Service Agent James K. Fox---now deceased---made an unauthorized set of black and white prints in 1963; these prints were loaned to researchers in the early 1980s, and the researchers photographed the black and white prints before returning them. It is this set---the "Fox Set"---that ended up in Lifton's 1988 trade paperback version of "Best Evidence." (2) Amateur photographer Robert Groden served as an unpaid photographic consultant to the HSCA from 1976-78; he surreptitiously photographed color prints in the possession of the HSCA staff. When you see color autopsy images in books---such as in Groden's own book cited above---the source are the color images he took of the prints while the HSCA temporarily had possession of them. The only images in the autopsy collection that have not been "bootlegged" are the brain images. (The HSCA produced an artist's rendition of one of the brain photographs in volume 7 of its report.) All images of the body published in the researcher books cited above do indeed represent actual autopsy images...but they are degraded to a greater or lesser extent, and suffer from contrast buildup, which is what happens when you make multi-generational photographic copies. Most of them are also cropped and do not show the entire field of view. Be very careful---and by this I mean very skeptical---of what researchers say about the photographs in their books; they are giving you personal interpretations about what the images appear to show, and as a former ARRB staff member I can tell you that even the "experts" disagree about what the photographs show or do not show. I have viewed the original collection 15 or 16 times...we showed them to some experts to obtain their impressions/opinions, and also used them during our 10 depositions of autopsy witnesses and participants. First, about format: the "original" images in the archives consist of 4" X 5" black and white negatives, and 4" X 5" color positive transparencies (both on duplex film). The brain B & W images are also 4" X 5" in size, but were taken with a press pack, not duplex film. The ARRB staff (namely, my boss, General Counsel Jeremy Gunn, with me assisting) asked many, many interpretive questions about the autopsy photographs of autopsy witnesses and participants, while they were under oath. Those questions, and the answers received, are all recorded in the ARRB deposition transcripts of the following persons (located in the JFK Collection in the National Archives of the United States): Pathologists James J. Humes, J. Thornton Boswell, and Pierre Finck; photographer and assistant photographer John Stringer and Floyd Riebe; X-Ray technicians Jerrol Custer and Edward Reed; FBI agents James Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill; and Navy photographer's mate Saundra Spencer. Although individual answers to the same question often varied from witness to witness, some patterns did emerge: (1) some photographs definitely taken at the autopsy are "missing"---that is, are not in the official collection, and never have been; (2) some individuals developed post mortem film images on types of film (color negatives, for example) that are not, repeat NOT, in the official collection; (3) some photographs seen by developers are NOT in the official collection; (4) the nature of the head wound (as well as the size of the tracheotomy) is markedly different in the autopsy images than what is remembered by Dallas treatment physicians and nurses at Parkland hospital. This is a very complex subject, but one major conclusion can be stated here: many more photographs were taken than are in the official collection; the collection has been "culled." My personal opinion, representing 3 years of work on the staff of the ARRB (including 10 autopsy-related depositions), is that additional photographs were taken during the reconstruction process following the embalming---that is, during the post-mortem restorative process. Some of those images have been intermingled with actual autopsy photos to create a false and misleading impression of the nature of the damage to the President's head. Specifically, both FBI agents told the ARRB under oath that there was a large hole in the right rear of President Kennedy's head at autopsy, and were quite perplexed when they saw images of an apparently intact back-of-the-head in the autopsy collection. Agent O'Neill said it looked like the head (not the images themselves) had been "doctored" or fixed up; Agent Sibert said the photographs of the intact back-of-the-head looked like a "reconstruction." This is indirect corroboration from 2 expert witnesses of the numerous Dallas reports from Parkland Hospital of a blow-out, or exit, in the back of the head. So this is a complex subject, and unlike a normal murder case, one cannot obtain a good sense of what happened from viewing the autosy photos. In fact, one will very likely be deceived. My boss at the ARRB, Jeremy Gunn, often said that to him, the autopsy photo collection was intended "to conceal, rather than to reveal." I believe David Lifton is correct in "Best Evidence" when he posits that the President's body was altered after it left Parkland and prior to the start of the autopsy, in order to remove evidence and change wounds. This was never proven conclusively because: (1) The Warren Commission did not show the autopsy images to the Dallas doctors (who had the "before" view in their memories) when they testified in the Spring of 1964; (2) The HSCA never showed the autopsy images to the Dallas doctors in spite of being asked to do so by several researchers; (3) The ARRB blew it, and never showed the autopsy images to the Dallas doctors during their depositions, in spite of me pleading for this to happen for 3 years. Why? The Archives refused to cooperate and ship the photos to Texas for the depositions, and the ARRB failed to insist that the Dallas physicians come to Washington (where the photos are), as they could and should have. The Photographic Alteration Issue: Many researchers, for years, assumed that the photographs had been altered, thus explaining the differences between the Dallas observations during treatment, and the wounds shown by the photos today. But neither Kodak, nor I, found any evidence of photographic alteration in these images, in spite of looking for such evidence when the images were digitally preserved in Rochester, New York. For this reason, as well as others, I have concluded that the reason the autopsy photos do not match the Dallas descriptions of the head wound is because many of the photos in the collection represent a "partial reconstruction" (of the head) performed during the embalming and restorative process on 11/23. I also concluded, for many reasons (as highlighted in a 32-page research paper I wrote while on the ARRB staff), that the brain photographs in the autopsy collection are not photos of President Kennedy's brain; rather, they are photos of someone else's brain designed to fool history (and any prospective audience of future investigators) into believing that a man in a building shot a man in a car. This conclusion of mine---that the autopsy photographic collection is an official fraud designed to support the "lone nut" assassin scenario (of an assailant shooting from above and behind)---is one of the major "smoking gun" legacies of the ARRB, and yet most Americans do not know about this because of limited and spotty press coverage about the ARRB's work. I will be happy to answer additional questions on this issue, and make some of my major medical research memos available to the web site, if requested. END" ___________ NOTE that since the time that Doug Horne wrote the above, he has amended his view about the alteration of the back of the head autopsy photographs, and now agrees that a matte insert has been overlayed over the occipital-parietal wound per the results of Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic testing of the "originals" at the National Archives, as set forth below: ___________ DOUGLAS HORNE ANNOUNCED THAT HE AGREES WITH DR. DAVID MANTIK’S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT DOCTORED AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS DURING JOINT INTERVIEW OF HIMSELF AND DR. MANTIK BY BRENT HOLLAND ON DECEMBER 9, 2016 (SEE FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPT OF 46:19 - 49:51 OF INTERVIEW AND NOTE THAT VIDEO IS CUED TO RELEVANT PORTION AT 46:19 [ https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 ]): …BRENT HOLLAND: “…How did they cover up those photos David? How did they, you know, because there is a photo that I use all the time?... Dr. McClelland has made a hand sketch of the back of JFK’s head and he shows approximately where the hole in the back of JFK’s head is, which is the lower right quadrant folks, and there is an autopsy photo that is supposed to be the back of JFK’s head that shows it fully intact. Your speculation on that David? DAVID MANTIK: Well I took along a stereo viewer to the archives to look at these images. The reason I did that is because if that particular area was faked in to cover up a hole, and it was faked in the same way on two partner images, then I would not see a 3-d effect, and that’s exactly what I saw. Robert Groden -- who is much more of a photographic expert than I am – and I have had discussions about that and he tells me exactly the same thing. BRENT HOLLAND: Is that right? Robert Groden show’s in the archive as well folks. Okay, what’s your speculation Doug? DOUGLAS HORNE: Well I now agree with Dr. Mantik. At the time I wrote my book – it was 2009 – I leaned toward the likelihood that the back of the head photos showed intact scalp because a lot of the scalp might have been dramatically re-arranged, ya know, carefully cut away from the cranium, and re-arranged, and just held in place for three minutes while they took pictures to try to prove there was no hole in the back of the head. But I respect what Dr. Mantik did with his stereoscopic viewer, and the problem is that the Review Board didn’t think to do that. And unfortunately, I think Jeremy Gunn and I were in the mode of trusting the HSCA. The HSCA wrote that its photographic consultant panel viewed the autopsy photographs stereoscopically and didn’t notice any problems. DAVID MANTIK: I discussed this particular issue with Robert Groden who was there. He made it very clear to me that Robert Blakey had no idea what stereoscopic viewing was all about… BRENT HOLLAND: Really?! DOUGLAS HORNE: Wow! DAVID MANTIK: …He was totally ignorant about it…. DOUGLAS HORNE: Wow! DAVID MANTIK: …And Robert’s observations totally agreed with mine… BRENT HOLLAND: So there you have corroboration. DAVID MANTIK: …They just, they just made it up. They had to. What else could they do. If they said something else the game would be up. This was a critical juncture to them. They had, they had to make a choice. DOUGLAS HORNE: The whole game of the HSCA was to blame Oswald for all of the wounds. And, uh, they had to admit there had been a frontal shot because the acoustic science forced them into saying that. But they still wanted to have their cake and to eat it too, and so they said Oswald still killed the president and wounded the governor, and that no one else did, and that the shot from the front missed. Robert Blakey is responsible for all that. Him and Michael Baden…” https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 ___________ Dr. David Mantik wrote: ⁠ "...While at the National Archives, I performed stereo viewing of the autopsy photographs [8]. This is possible because each view is represented by two separate photographs, taken close together in time and space. Such a pair is what makes stereo viewing possible. I performed this procedure for the original generation of photographs (4” x 5” transparencies), for the color prints, and also for the black and white copies. I did this for many of the distinct views in the collection. But the bottom line is this: the only abnormal site was the back of the head—it always yielded a 2D image, as if each eye had viewed precisely the same image. Of course, that would have been expected if someone (illicitly in a dark room) had inserted the same image into that anatomic site for each member of the photographic pair. I discussed this issue with Robert Groden, who served as the photographic consultant for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during 1976-1979. He concurred with my observations, i.e., only the back of the head looked abnormal during his stereo viewing for the HSCA. ⁠ Although the large posterior hole is often cited as evidence for a frontal shot, a second issue, perhaps equally as important, should not be overlooked: the severe discrepancy between the photographs and the witnesses—all by itself— strongly suggests manipulation of this photograph. In other words, whoever altered this photograph likely recognized that the large posterior defect loudly proclaimed a frontal shot, so much so in fact, that it became critical to cover that hole. ⁠ Pathologist J. Boswell (many decades later) speculated that the scalp had merely been stretched so as to cover the hole. In fact, to have done so, and to have succeeded so seamlessly, would have defeated the sole purpose of the photographs, which presumably was to capture reality. If ever a photograph existed of this large defect, then that one has disappeared. ⁠ Some witnesses do recall seeing such a photograph immediately after the autopsy, and we know (from the autopsy photographer himself) that other autopsy photographs have disappeared. Furthermore, we know from Boswell’s sketch on a skull model, that the bone under this apparently intact scalp was in fact missing [9]. So which is more decisive: missing scalp—or missing bone? Some have argued that the Parkland physicians have authenticated this photograph, and that we should therefore accept its authenticity. However, what they said was more like this: If the scalp had been stretched in this fashion, then they could not take issue with that photograph. Absent such a peculiar maneuver, however, they were dubious. Their doubt was further accentuated in a very recent documentary: “The Parkland Doctors” [10] (THIS WAS RETITLED TO "WHAT THE DOCTORS SAW," AND WAS RECENTLY RELEASED BY PARAMOUNT +). ⁠ Seven Parkland physicians met to discuss their recollections. They were profoundly troubled by autopsy images of the posterior scalp. To describe these images, they readily used words like “manipulated” and “altered.”..." ⁠ 'JFK AASSASSINATION PARADOXES: A PRIMER FOR BEGINNERS' Journal of Health Science & Education | David W. Mantik, MD, PhD https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf⁠ Mantik DW (2018) JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners. J Health Sci Educ 2: 126.

THE FOX SET

A little more than a month ago in response to one of your posts on another thread, after reviewing the Tucker Carlson videos in question, and seeing that Tucker Carlson had made a big production out of calling for Pompeo to be a guest on this particular segment in which Tucker was announcing confirmation of the involvement of the CIA in the JFKA from a source familiar with the withheld JFK records, I was led to speculate that it had actually been Pompeo who had been the source (I was suspicious that Tucker's announcement about Pompeo was intended to give Pompeo a kind of plausible deniability): The following video starts out with part of the hurrah Tucker was making about Pompeo declining to appear on his show to comment on the segment: I had at the time been assuming that there was a friendly collusion going on between Tucker and Pompeo behind the scenes, but after hearing Tucker share his animosity toward Pompeo on the recent Rogan interview, that assumption is definitely out the window. Another possibility might be that Tucker was opportunistically trying to set up the segment to have Pompeo offer more to Tucker about what he or another had already disclosed to him about the involvement of the CIA, and maybe the call to Tucker from Pompeo's lawyer was really a way for Pompeo to communicate to Tucker that he should shut up about it because of Pompeo's culpability for disclosing classified information to Tucker?

Tucker Carlson's lawsuit defense is mentioned in this video about Rachel Maddow using the "we are entertainment not news" defense in a defamation suit against her...

@Keyvan Shahrdar, on two separate threads now you have responded to the evidentiary challenges @Sandy Larsen and I have presented to you with various reiterations of the above mantra, and have offered absolutely nothing substantive in response, and it is so far appearing futile to even attempt to communicate with you because you are revealing yourself to be a one trick pony capable of nothing other than this solitary hollow mantra: The suppressed premise underlying your mantra appears to be the proposition that the films and photographs of the assassination are authentic, pristine and inviolate, and that the abundant evidence that impeaches the authenticity thereof is mere "gibberish" and "narrative" unworthy of the least consideration, so Sandy and I have presented you with questions within the conceptual framework you have presented which you appear to be refusing to address, even though it is the photographic evidence itself we have presented you with. So I am here going to present these challenges to you again, while reminding you that we have presented same to you within the criteria which you have -- however unwisely -- labeled as "facts" as opposed to "gibberish" and "narratives." In essence, for the sake of argument, we are attempting to engage you in a discussion, on your own terms, and in doing so have presented you with issues on your own turf which one would think you should be able to understand. The questions Sandy presented you with were at the post linked as follows: 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=534070 And the related questions I presented you with were at the post linked as follows: 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=534128 For your convenience, those questions were essentially as follows, which challenges you with the additional question of whether you are capable of responding without resort to your dismissive "gibberish/narrative" mantra, given that these questions relate exclusively to the photographic evidence: __________________ I am with you, Sandy, and would like to see Keyvan answer the questions you have posed about where Keyvan believes the large head wound was located, and about whether it is the Zapruder film head wound imagery or the right profile autopsy photographs of JFK that are fraudulent (given that they contradict each other). However, I would like to add the following Zapruder film headwound imagery to the equation (from the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" direct copy of the extant "original" Zapruder film), so that Keyvan can fully appreciate the cantaloupe sized cavernous wound crater that is depicted as being in JFK's forehead in the film which not one single Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital or Bethesda autopsy witness ever reported or described, and which clearly contradicts the autopsy photographs: What specifically I would like to see Keyvan explain is why in the Zapruder film in frames Z-335 and Z-337 we are see Jackie Kennedy's pink shoulder pad where we should be seeing President Kennedy's forehead, when the autopsy photographs demonstrate that the President's forehead is perfectly intact: ZAPRUDER FRAME 335 ZAPRUDER FRAME 337 Now, Keyvan, how do you reconcile Z-335 and Z-337, as well as the other Zapruder film images above showing a cavernous cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead with the following right profile autopsy photographs of the fallen President which demonstrate that there was no such crater in his forehead and that the forehead was perfectly intact? In other words, which photographic images are fraudulent, the autopsy photographs, or the Zapruder film images?

@Keyvan Shahrdar, on two separate threads now you have responded to the evidentiary challenges @Sandy Larsen and I have presented to you with various reiterations of the following mantra, and have offered absolutely nothing substantive in response, and it is so far appearing futile to even attempt to communicate with you because you are revealing yourself to be a one trick pony capable of nothing other than this solitary hollow mantra: The suppressed premise underlying your mantra appears to be the proposition that the films and photographs of the assassination are authentic, pristine and inviolate, and that the abundant evidence that impeaches the authenticity thereof is mere "gibberish" and "narrative" unworthy of the least consideration, so Sandy and I have presented you with questions within the conceptual framework you have presented which you appear to be refusing to address, even though it is the photographic evidence itself we have presented you with. So I am here going to present these challenges to you again, while reminding you that we have presented same to you within the criteria which you have -- however unwisely -- labeled as "facts" as opposed to "gibberish" and "narratives." In essence, for the sake of argument, we are attempting to engage you in a discussion, on your own terms, and in doing so have presented you with issues on your own turf which one would think you should be able to understand. The questions Sandy presented you with were at the post linked as follows: 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=534070 And the related questions I presented you with were at the post linked as follows: 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=534128 For your convenience, those questions were essentially as follows, which challenges you with the additional question of whether you are capable of responding without resort to your dismissive "gibberish/narrative" mantra, given that these questions relate exclusively to the photographic evidence: __________________ I am with you, Sandy, and would like to see Keyvan answer the questions you have posed about where Keyvan believes the large head wound was located, and about whether it is the Zapruder film head wound imagery or the right profile autopsy photographs of JFK that are fraudulent (given that they contradict each other). However, I would like to add the following Zapruder film headwound imagery to the equation (from the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" direct copy of the extant "original" Zapruder film), so that Keyvan can fully appreciate the cantaloupe sized cavernous wound crater that is depicted as being in JFK's forehead in the film which not one single Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital or Bethesda autopsy witness ever reported or described, and which clearly contradicts the autopsy photographs: What specifically I would like to see Keyvan explain is why in the Zapruder film in frames Z-335 and Z-337 we are see Jackie Kennedy's pink shoulder pad where we should be seeing President Kennedy's forehead, when the autopsy photographs demonstrate that the President's forehead is perfectly intact: ZAPRUDER FRAME 335 ZAPRUDER FRAME 337 Now, Keyvan, how do you reconcile Z-335 and Z-337, as well as the other Zapruder film images above showing a cavernous cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead with the following right profile autopsy photographs of the fallen President which demonstrate that there was no such crater in his forehead and that the forehead was perfectly intact? In other words, which photographic images are fraudulent, the autopsy photographs, or the Zapruder film images?

Mortician Tom Robinson presents a huge problem to Pat Speer's distorted conception of the JFKA medical evidence so he resorts to doing a smear job on Robinson's testimony reminiscent of what he has done to Dr. Robert McClelland due to the huge problems McClelland presents to his project. It is thus appropriate to say that Speer has done a "McClelland job" on Tom Robinson. Recall Speer's highly deceptive presentation of Dr. McClelland's first day Admittance Note for President Kennedy in which Speer insults our intelligence with his claim that McClelland's Admittance Note is describing only one head wound (an entrance wound in the left temple McClelland described based upon Dr. Marion Jenkins's mistaken observation regarding same). The Note ALSO elsewhere describes a "massive gunshot wound of the head," consistent with all of McClelland's subsequent descriptions of the large avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head, but Pat Speer thinks we are all too stupid to read the Note for ourselves to unmask his deception. _________________ 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 _________________ Speer, in doing one of his infamous "McClelland jobs" on Tom Robinson takes the art of deception to a new level. Speer simply straight out writes bald faced lies. Pat Speer's wrote a series of lies about Tom Robinson, as follows: 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 Pat Speer characterizes Tom Robinson's 1/12/1977 HSCA testimony as Robinson saying "I think I saw a small wound that was not a bullet hole by the temple": But as can be seen in the transcript of Tom Robinson's 1/12/1977 below, Tom Robinson testified that there was a little wound "at the temples in the hairline" on the "right" side that was "a quarter of an inch" in diameter (Speer deceptively claims this was instead a "large wound," consistent with his corrupt paradigm), and was according to Robinson caused "probably [by] a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet" (but NOTE that the ARRB questioning of Robinson in 1996 makes it clear that Robinson's opinions of the cause of the wound were ALL based upon what he overheard the pathologists saying [as they engaged in the cover-up of the frontal wounds] as Robinson was not any kind of expert in pathology or ballistics). Pat Speer next characterizes Tom Robinson's 6/21/1996 ARRB testimony as Robinson saying "I think I saw two or three tiny wounds by the right cheek": But when we consult the actual 1996 ARRB report, we see that just as Tom Robinson did in his 1977 HSCA testimony, in his 1996 ARRB testimony Tom Robinson ALSO specifically describes the right temple wound separately from the shrapnel punctures in the cheek (See next to red arrow below). Tom Robinson additionally executed two drawings of the right temple wound for the ARRB (one of which is the skull diagram below). Then Pat Spear attempts to smear Doug Horne by writing "Doug Horne, fourteen years after that: Robinson said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye." What Speer thinks we are all too stupid to read ourselves in the 1/12/1977 transcript of the testimony is 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." Furthermore, as can be seen in Robinson's marking of the right temple wound in the skull diagram above, Speer's claim that the wound was below the eye is also categorically false. Speer's fraudulent representations about McClelland, Robinson, Jenkins, and virtually every other person he includes in his twisted commentary are an insult to our collective intelligence, but to Speer, that apparently doesn't seem to matter, as he demonstrably believes we are all too stupid to fact check his deceptive claims. _________________ Setting aside Speer's manipulative treatment of the evidence of the right temple wound, it is simply indisputable that there was awareness at Parkland Hospital of the existence of the wound in the right temple. There is no way around this. Acting White House Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff announced to the world on national television that Dr. Burkley had told him that it was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head, and when asked for clarification Kilduff specified that the bullet entered the head in the right temple. How the agents of the cover up managed to completely squelch mention of the entry wound to the right temple from the reports and testimony of the Parkland doctors and nurses is a good question, but there had to be awareness of that wound on the part of the trauma team in order for Dr. Burkley to be aware of it: Additionally, there was press coverage on the day of the assassination which suggests that the treating physicians were aware of the wound to the right temple, such as the following Telegraph Herald article in which Dr. Malcolm Perry is quoted as saying "the entrance wound was in the front of the head:

So, in Dr. Peter Peters professional judgment, this is an "incision" at the hairline on JFK's forehead. An insision that was not present when Peters inspected the body at Parkland Hospital. What do we see in the same region in the Zapruder film at frame 337 (compared with frame 312, a second and a half earlier, one frame prior to the headshot at Z-313): What is that we are seeing where JFK's forehead should be in Z-337, but Jackie's pink shoulder pad? How can that be? ZAPRUDER FRAME 337 Is that some kind of optical illusion? Well, let's look at Z-335 to see whether it also depicts Jackie's pink shoulder pad where JFK's forehead should be: ZAPRUDER FRAME 335 No, not appearing to be an optical illusion. How about if we look at all of the clear Zapruder frames between Z-314 and Z-337 to see if we can ascertain whether the catastrophic damage we are seeing in Z-337 is present in the other frames as well? What? Why do we see a cantaloupe sized segment of JFK's anterior skull being detached from his head, leaving a huge crater where his forehead should be? That is not consistent with the intact forehead we see in the autopsy photographs, is it? Could it be that the damage we are seeing in the Z-frames in question is the damage depicted in the autopsy photographs of the top of JFK's head? But if that is the case, how did that damage move all of that distance from the forward anterior region of JFK's head to the crown of JFK's head between the time of the assassination in Dealey Plaza to the time of the autopsy in the Bethesda morgue? Could the testimony of mortician Tom Robinson given when shown the top of the head autopsy photographs by the ARRB shed any light on this discrepancy? MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson: "...FOX AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS: After completing his four drawings of head wounds and describing those wounds, ARRB staff showed Mr. Robinson a set of what is alleged to be the Fox autopsy photographs to see whether they were consistent with what he remembered seeing in the morgue at Bethesda. His comments follow, related to... PAGE 5: https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0005a.htm ...various Fox photos: -Right Superior Profile (corresponding to B & W #s 5 and 6); He does not see the small shrapnel holes he noted in the right cheek, but he assumes this is because of the photo's poor quality. -Back of Head (corresponds to B & W #s 15 and 16): Robinson said; "You see, this is the flap of skin, the blow-out in the right temple that I told you about, and which I drew in my drawing." WHEN ASKED BY ARRB WHERE THE HOLE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD WAS IN RELATION TO THE PHOTOGRAPH, ROBINSON RESPONDED BY PLACING HIS FINGERS IN A CIRCLE JUST ABOVE THE WHITE SPOT IN THE HAIRLINE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH AND SAID "THE HOLE WAS RIGHT HERE, WHERE I SAID IT WAS IN MY DRAWING, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T SHOW UP IN THIS PHOTO." (emphasis not in original) -Top of Head/Superior View of Cranium (corresponds to B & W #'s 7-10): ROBINSON FROWNED, AND SAID WITH APPARENT DISAGREEMENT, "THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE WOUND WAS IN THE TOP OF THE HEAD." HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DAMAGE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS "WHAT THE DOCTORS DID," AND EXPLAINED THAT THEY CUT THIS SCALP OPEN AND REFLECTED IT BACK IN ORDER TO REMOVE BULLET FRAGMENTS (THE FRAGMENTS HE HAD OBSERVED IN A GLASS VIAL). ARRB STAFF MEMBERS ASKED ROBINSON WHETHER THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE TOP OF THE HEAD WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE MORGUE AND BEFORE THE BRAIN WAS REMOVED; HE REPLIED BY SAYING THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN," BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD (emphasis not in original)...." So, mortician Tom Robinson protested the top of the head autopsy photographs, complaining that the damage depicted in them represented "WHAT THE DOCTORS DID" when searching for bullet fragments, and emphasized "THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN," BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD." Well how about what Dr. Paul Peters said upon seeing the Zapruder film images above, perhaps that might shed some light on these discrepancies? PAUL PETERS, MD: "...When shown enlarged Zapruder film frames depicting a right-anterior wound, Peters wrote, "The wound which you marked...I never saw and I don't think there was such a wound. I think that was simply an artifact of copying Zapruder's movie... The only wound I saw on President Kennedy's head was in the occipitoparietal area on the right side." (Personal letter to Wallace Milam 4-14-80, copy, courtesy of Wallace Milam to author Aguilar; also in Lifton, BE: 557)..." http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm Something smells rotten in Denmark! The Zapruder film depicts a cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead which by the time the body is autopsied has moved to the crown of JFK's head. But mortician Tom Robinson tells us that the doctors caused the damage to the top of the head, and that the only large open wound was in the back of the head, and Dr. Paul Peters, who inspected the body immediately after the assassination, tells us that there was no head wound other than the large avulsive wound at the back of the head, and that the incision he identified at the hairline in the right profile autopsy photograph also was not present at Parkland Hospital. In light of the above, does anybody want to defend the authenticity of these fraudulent film and photographic materials?

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. In 1977, James Jenkins told the HSCA that the large head wound was in the back of JFK's head, and made the following sketch consistent therewith: And in 1979, Jenkins told David Lifton that it was a large "gaping" wound in the occipital-parietal region of JFK's head: And in 2018, James Jenkins is drawing the same small right temple wound and occipital-parietal wound that he described at the 2013 Lancer Conderence that you are lying about: So, what I want to know, Mr. Speer, is how do you get off on impugning the credibility of Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser regarding this matter when all along it has actually been YOU who is telling the lies?

I've had several extensive, though oddly disjointed, discussions with @Keyvan Shahrdar on Facebook about the "question" of the location of JFK's large avulsive headwound. On a number of occasions, Keyvan cited the names of Parkland doctors in support of a top of the head location for the large avulsive headwound (consistent with Zapruder film imagery), but then when I presented Dr. Gary Aguilar's chronologies of the varies testimonies of those doctors, he became unresponsive, and would not defend his previous claims about the doctors. More recently on Facebook, Keyvan cited Bethesda Tech James Jenkins in an effort to rebut the occipital-parietal location of the large avulsive headwound (perhaps after reading some of @Pat Speer's conjecture about Jenkins), to which I responded by posting the following 2018 markings of the wounds by Jenkins on a skull model: As well as the following, earliest drawing by Jenkins of the occipital-parietal wound, that Jenkins did for the HSCA in 1977: After I posted these Jenkins renderings for Keyvan's inspection, he became unresponsive again, and refused to address the contradiction I was pointing out between his claim that Jenkins was a top of the head witness, and the drawings Jenkins had made of the occipital-parietal wound on the back of JFK's head, resorting instead to his mantra that "facts supersede narrative." I am with you, Sandy, and would like to see Keyvan answer the questions you have posed about where Keyvan believes the large head wound was located, and about whether it is the Zapruder film head wound imagery or the right profile autopsy photographs of JFK that are fraudulent (given that they contradict each other). For that matter, I'd also like to see Pat Speer answer the same questions, as he always seems to be reticent about identifying an exact location for the large head wound. However, I would like to add the following Zapruder film headwound imagery to the equation (from the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" direct copy of the extant "original" Zapruder film), so that Keyvan and Pat can fully appreciate the cantaloupe sized cavernous wound crater that is depicted as being in JFK's forehead in the film which not one single Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital or Bethesda autopsy witness ever reported or described, and which clearly contradicts the autopsy photographs: What specifically I would like to see Keyvan and Pat explain is why in the Zapruder film in frames Z-335 and Z-337 we are see Jackie Kennedy's pink shoulder pad where we should be seeing President Kennedy's forehead, when the autopsy photographs demonstrate that the President's forehead is perfectly intact: ZAPRUDER FRAME 335 ZAPRUDER FRAME 337 Now, Keyvan and Pat, how do you reconcile Z-335 and Z-337, as well as the other Zapruder film images above showing a cavernous cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead with the following right profile autopsy photographs of the fallen President which demonstrate that there was no such crater in his forehead and that the forehead was perfectly intact?

Thank you, Vince. I have closely studied an earlier much longer version of this video and frequently quote therefrom (with proper attribution, of course). You've accumulated a great deal of very important evidence during your career which has greatly benefited the research community. I post directly below some of my favorite and most frequently used examples of that evidence as a tribute to your work: _____________ Chapter Ten of 'HONEST ANSWERS ABOUT THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY' by Vince Palamara (Courtesy of Vince Palamara) "Master List of Witnesses Who Stated That the Limousine Slowed or Stopped – A Deadly Delay on Elm Street" "The following is a complete listing, the largest one ever compiled, of every single witness I could find – over 70 in all – who stated that the limousine either slowed down or stopped. This deadly delay on Elm Street was Secret Service agent Bill Greer’s fault, pure and simple; he was the limousine driver. As even lone-nut authors agree, Greer’s inept driving of the limo during the shooting allowed the assassination to be a tragic success...." LINK TO PDF OF CHAPTER TEN: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AnVVyr2Qcdy-gccV7bF_4Je5GuEYaA?e=E6b8Ay LINK TO POST OF CHAPTER TEN: https://www.facebook.com/groups/political assassinations researchhgroup/posts/5063457320376963/ _____________ VINCE PALAMARA INTERVIEWS OF SAMUEL KINNEY _____________ VINCE PALAMARA'S NOTES FROM DR. ROBERT MCCLELLAND _____________ VINCE PALAMARA'S DR. PAUL PETERS VIDEO ON THE "INCISION" _____________ EXCERPT OF VINCE PALAMARA INTERVIEW OF AUBREY RIKE _____________ VINCE PALAMARA VIDEO OF PAUL LANDIS _____________ 1995 COPA CONFERENCE AT WHICH ANDY PURDY AND MICHAEL BADEN WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE HSCA'S BOH FRAUD _____________ VINCE PALAMARA'S WORK REGARDING DR. WILLIAM ZEDLITZ

“Your Blind Trust in Official Narratives: A Rebuttal” Ah, the classic defense of the status quo—dismiss any dissenting voice as a conspiracy theorist. Let’s dissect your points with surgical precision, shall we? Harper Fragment: A Conveniently Incomplete Story Oh, it’s “just a fragment,” you say? Convenient. But let’s not forget that fragments can hold the key to truth. Dr. Mantik’s interpretation isn’t some whimsical fairy tale; it’s based on scientific analysis. And while you’re busy waving the “incontrovertible proof” flag, remember that the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. We must remain open to different interpretations, you claim. Agreed! But let’s apply that principle consistently. Why not extend the same courtesy to those who question the official narrative? X-Rays: The Great Optical Odyssey Ah, Dr. Mantik—the thorn in the side of the establishment. His meticulous scrutiny of the x-rays revealed inconsistencies. But no, let’s not call them “indisputable facts.” Instead, let’s trust the majority of forensic experts who, coincidentally, toe the official line. Authenticity? Sure, the majority says they’re legit. But remember, majorities have been wrong throughout history. And if you think optical density and structure discrepancies are mere professional interpretations, you’re missing the forest for the pixelated trees. Zapruder Film: The Holy Grail of Denial Scrutinized? Absolutely. But let’s not pretend it’s untouchable. Discrepancies aren’t just “observed”; they’re glaring. Alterations? Maybe not “concrete proof,” but hey, subtlety isn’t the film’s strong suit. It’s like saying, “Sure, the Mona Lisa might have a mustache, but we can’t prove it.” Validated by investigations? Ah, the circular dance of official validation. Investigate, validate, rinse, repeat. Meanwhile, the Nix film and Moorman photo—also part of this cinematic saga—wink from the shadows. Narratives vs. Facts: A False Dichotomy My dear defender of "official" narratives, let’s talk about “sticking to the facts.” Yes, some aspects involve interpretation. But when experts disagree, it’s not a kumbaya moment—it’s a battleground of ideas. And guess what? Skepticism isn’t a sin; it’s the heartbeat of progress. Respectful discussion? Absolutely! But don’t muzzle dissent with the “we’re all in this together” mantra. We’re not. Some of us wear tin foil hats; others wear blindfolds. Let’s keep the gloves off and wrestle with the truth. So, my friend, while you sip your official narrative tea, remember that history’s rebels—the Galileos, the Mandelas, the Mantiks—were once labeled conspiracy theorists too. Cheers! 🥂🔍🔎