Denny Zartman Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 @Keven Hofeling @Sandy Larsen Excellent work on these threads. You have both presented logical and consistent arguments with impressive supporting materials. In my opinion, you have won this debate several times over. The only thing I would add is that (according to some folks) not only were these medical experts all hallucinating or mistaken, they were all hallucinating or mistaken during the examination of the single most important VIP any one of them would ever examine in their entire lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: What? Of course it makes sense that they would cover up the hole in the back and paint a new hole on the upper right side... so that it would be consistent with the "lone nut shooting from behind" narrative. That was the whole point of the cover-up Pat. You are being duped by the cover-up. No, you HAVE been duped by the cover-up. The small EOP entrance/large top of the head exit NEVER made sense, but people bought into because they were familiar with hunting ammunition, and such a combination of wounds is possible with hunting ammunition. It's not tooting my own horn, because I'm sick and tired and consider my work on the JFK case largely a waste of time, but Chapter 16b on my website is probably the most important "book" on the case... Period. In this chapter, I present the history of the study of wound ballistics, and show how JFK's head wound only makes sense if it was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit--precisely as presumed by Dr. Clark. Over the course of this chapter, and then in the following chapters, I go on to show how the scalp wounds, skull fractures, tears to the dura, and tears in the brain ALL support that the fatal injury struck tangentially at the top of the skull. It is, in short, a scientific fact, that the fatal wound impacted at the supposed exit location, which means there were two head wounds, and thus--almost certainly--two shooters. Now, I've worked with a group of doctors who want to take this information, and use it to support a shot from the front. And I'm okay with that because to me the provenance of the shot comes second, and what matters is that people realize that the large wound in the films and photos is THE SMOKING GUN that proves a conspiracy, that was hidden in plain sight by the WC and government panels, and then buried under mountains of dirt by those claiming all the evidence is fake, because it must be fake because it supports the Oswald did it scenario. ONLY... they were wrong. It supported no such thing. Edited January 11 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 As far as semantics... One does not say one is hallucinating when one is simply mistaken. People thinking a ball is in a magician's left hand when it is really in his right are not hallucinating. People thinking a runner is safe at first when he was really out by a step are not hallucinating. People seeing a woman dressed like their wife from a distance, and thinking it is their wife, are not hallucinating. Here's a quick definition of hallucinating. A hallucination is a false perception of objects or events involving your senses: sight, sound, smell, touch and taste. Hallucinations seem real, but they’re not. Chemical reactions and/or abnormalities in your brain cause hallucinations. Hallucinations are typically a symptom of a psychosis-related disorder, particularly schizophrenia, but they can also result from substance use, neurological conditions and some temporary situations. A person may experience a hallucination with or without the insight that what they’re experiencing isn’t real. When a person thinks their hallucination is real, it’s considered a psychotic symptom. Conclusion: Pat Speer never said, nor implied, that witnesses seeing things incorrectly are hallucinating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 35 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said: @Keven Hofeling @Sandy Larsen Excellent work on these threads. You have both presented logical and consistent arguments with impressive supporting materials. In my opinion, you have won this debate several times over. Thanks Denny. 35 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said: ... (according to some folks) not only were these medical experts all hallucinating or mistaken... Your saying that reminds me of something I wanted to clarify, but forgot to, about use of the term "hallucination." While technically speaking the word "hallucination" could be used in the case of a person seeing a gaping wound that isn't there, I of course agree that it is far better to use the term "mistake"... but only if it just a small number of people making the mistake, and especially if the mistake made varies from person-to-person. I've never used the word "hallucinate" in such a situation. However, the case of the Parkland doctors and nurses -- as described by Pat et al -- with a large number of people making virtually identical mistakes.... this has all the hallmarks of a mass hallucination. And thus "mistake" is not the best term to use to describe it. "Mass hallucination" is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 25 minutes ago, Pat Speer said: No, you HAVE been duped by the cover-up. The small EOP entrance/large top of the head exit NEVER made sense ... What? I don't even believe that, so how can you say I'm the one whose been duped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: The case of the Parkland doctors and nurses -- as described by Pat et al -- with a large number of people making virtually identical mistakes.... this has all the hallmarks of a mass hallucination. And thus "mistake" is not the best term to use to describe it. "Mass hallucination" is. I strongly disagree, Sandy. I agree totally with the things Pat Speer said in his last post. And, just like Pat, I too am often accused of saying the Parkland doctors were "hallucinating". But I have never said anybody at Parkland suffered from hallucinations. Most of the Parkland doctors were, however, unquestionably WRONG (i.e., mistaken) about the location of JFK's large head wound, and the autopsy photos and X-rays provide the undeniable proof that those Parkland physicians were wrong, and as such they all (for some inexplicable reason) experienced a "Mass Mistaken Observation" (for lack of a better phrase). http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Back Of JFK's Head (Part 1) Edited January 11 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said: Conclusion: Pat Speer never said, nor implied, that witnesses seeing things incorrectly are hallucinating. True. But your description of how the ~20 Parkland doctors and nurses all merely thought they saw a hole on the back of the head is a classic description of mass hallucination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: ...those Parkland physicians (for some reason) all experienced a "Mass Mistaken Observation" (for lack of a better phrase). The better -- and proper -- phrase is "mass hallucination." It doesn't happen in real life. Some people just believe it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted January 11 Author Share Posted January 11 (edited) 3 hours ago, David Von Pein said: Plus there's the always-ignored fact that Clint Hill's head (and others in the limo too) have the exact same degree of "blackness" in the Z-Film frames as does JFK's head --- as discussed HERE. So the CT Fantasists must also think Hill's head has been "blacked out" too (I guess). The "Fakery" craziness never ends. Clint Hill had black hair, so of course the images of his hair in the extant Zapruder film are going to be black. But there is no d-max black shadow on his head with sharp edges like there is on JFK's head, so your comparison is not valid. JFK had light brown hair and the contrast between his brown hair and the d-max black patch is very obvious in all the frames that follow Z-317 in which we can see the back of his head. A valid analysis has already been performed comparing the shadows on Governer Connally's head and JFK's head, and the darkness of the d-max black hexagon shaped patch with sharp edges on the back of JFK's head is significantly darker. As you can see here in a GIF of Z-312 morphing into Z-317, there is simply no resemblance between the natural shadow that we see in Z-312 (one frame before the headshot) and Z-317. Only 5/18th of one second has passed between the two frames, and we see the natural appearing shadow in Z-312 transform into a d-max black hexagon shaped patch with sharp edges. Can you honestly say you have ever seen such a shadow as the one in Z-317? I don't think so. The biggest problem with the comparisons you are trying to make of Z-317 to the screenshots of Clint Hill on your website is that your screenshots come from very dark and degraded versions of the extant Zapruder film. I suggest that you take a look at Steve Thompson's version of the 1997 MPI "Images of an Assassination" Zapruder film that was struck directly from the extant "original" Zapruder film at the National Archives, which Thompson has color corrected: Furthermore, I suggest that you note that true and legitimate cinematography professionals such as Ned Price, Paul Rutan Jr. and Leo Zahn have conducted content analyses on the extant Zapruder film and have concluded that it suffers from very crude special effects, and without a doubt, their determinations certainly trump the amateur analyses conducted by you and I. ________________ Because Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead are professionals working within the film industry, they have been able to enlist true Hollywood experts in cinematography and postproduction who have performed content analysis of the extant Zapruder film. Among them are genuine cinematography professionals such as Ned Price (https://studentfilmreviews.org/?p=17707 ) and Paul Rutan, Jr. (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0751876/ ) who had the following to say about the Zapruder film. Look them up, they are the real deal. ------------------------------------------------ FILM INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS COMMENTING ABOUT Z-317 ------------------------------------------------ "...This extreme close-up from the HD scan of Zapruder frame 317 is what prompted one noted Hollywood expert in post-production -- Ned Price, the Head of Restoration at a major motion picture studio -- to say: "Oh that's horrible, that's just terrible. I can't believe it's such a bad fake." His film industry colleague, Paul Rutan, Jr., proclaimed we are looking at artwork in this frame (i.e., aerial imaging) -- not at "opticals" (i.e., traveling matte)...." Horne's "Inside the ARRB," Vol. 4, p. 1361. Even Rollie Zavada has acknowledged the black patch and conceded that "...it certainly looks like a patch; it looks like it could be an alteration...." Although Rollie Zavada is not and never claimed to be an expert on film alteration or cinematography. Zavada was a Kodak employee with expertise in Kodachrome II film, and thus is not qualified to evaluate the Zapruder film for content falsification, and the ARRB mandate that Zavada had did not include "content analysis" for which he is not qualified. Zavada authenticated that the extant Zapruder film is on Kodak Kodachrome II film -- which is no surprise given that Hawkeyeworks plant was a joint CIA/Kodak facility -- and then went beyond his expertise to claim that the film had not been altered. But as you can see below, even Rollie Zavada, viewing an inferior copy of Z-317, admitted that the black patch looks like an alteration, but not being an expert in film alteration, simply said he refused to believe it because he hadn't seen evidence of how it could have been done.... "It certainly looks like a patch; it looks like it could be an alteration. But I haven't seen evidence of how it was done, so I refuse to believe it." Having no expertise in film alteration whatsoever he resorted to blind faith in a sacred cow instead of following the evidence wherever it leads even though the Heavens may fall... -------------------------------------------------------------- DOUG HORNE TAKES ROLLIE ZAVADA TO TASK OVER ZAPRUDER FRAME 317 [THE BLACK PATCH SUPERIMPOSED OVER JFK'S OCCIPITAL BLOW OUT WOUND]: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10709.html "...In the breakout session, when Josiah Thompson asked him to display the controversial frame 317 and comment on whether the black object covering the rear of JFK's head was a natural shadow or evidence of alteration, Rollie [Zavada] put up the slide (a very dark, muddy image of 317 with much contrast present---an image greatly inferior to the Hollywood scans of the forensic copy), and then said words to the effect: "It certainly looks like a patch; it looks like it could be an alteration. But I haven't seen evidence of how it was done, so I refuse to believe it." [This is very close to a verbatim quote---guaranteed to be accurate in its substance.] I and several others, including Leo Zahn of Hollywood, then suggested---demanded, actually---that Rollie display ALL of frame 317---not just the portion showing JFK's head. When this slide was finally displayed, I asked everyone present in the room what explanation those who were against alteration had for the extreme difference in density between the shadow on Governor Connally's head, and the extremely dense and dark (almost D-max) "anomaly" on JFK's head in that same frame. The two so-called "shadows" have absolutely no relation or similarity to each other, yet both men were photographed in the same frame, at the same instant in time, on the same planet, with the same light source (i.e., the sun). The ensuing silence was more profound than that inside the whale that swallowed Jonah. Rollie and Tink had no explanation for this. Nor does anyone else, who believes that the Zapruder film is an unaltered film. The most reasonable, and currently the only known explanation for this paradox in frame 317, is alteration---the blacking out of the true exit wound on the back of JFK's head in that frame, and in many others, with crude animation...." 'JOSIAH THOMPSON AND ROLLIE ZAVADA AT JFK LANCER: A CRITICAL REPORT' by Douglas P. Horne, author of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board. https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10709.html ________________ The short and simple of this is that the hexagon shaped d-max black colored patch with sharp edges we see here is not a natural shadow, and has been determined by Hollywood professionals to be the product of crude special effects work on the camera-original Zapruder film. Edited January 11 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: The better -- and proper -- phrase is "mass hallucination." It doesn't happen in real life. Some people just believe it happens. Why you think "mistake" and "hallucination" are the same thing is a mystery to me. ~shrug~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 4 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: Why you think "mistake" and "hallucination" are the same thing is a mystery to me. What I said is that MASS Hallucination is a better term than MASS Mistaken Observation. Because they all made virtually the same mistake. But if you prefer to call it Mass Identical Mistaken Observation, be my guest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: But if you prefer to call it Mass Identical Mistaken Observation, be my guest. Of course I'm going to call it that....because that's exactly what it was --- a Mistaken Observation made by several different individuals. Edited January 11 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Zartman Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Thanks Denny. Your saying that reminds me of something I wanted to clarify, but forgot to, about use of the term "hallucination." While technically speaking the word "hallucination" could be used in the case of a person seeing a gaping wound that isn't there, I of course concede that it is far better to use the term "mistake"... but only if it just a small number of people making the mistake, and especially if the mistake made varies from person-to-person. However, the case of the Parkland doctors and nurses -- as described by Pat et al -- with a large number of people making virtually identical mistakes.... this has all the hallmarks of a mass hallucination. And thus "mistake" is not the best term to use to describe it. "Mass hallucination" is. If doctors say they saw cerebellum when in reality they didn't, I don't know how it could be framed as anything but a mass hallucination. From what I've read, doctors can tell the difference between cerebrum and cerebellum by sight. If they actually saw cerebellum, then it follows that there was a hole in the back of Kennedy's head large enough to leak brain matter. I had been in here or in another thread on this topic where I had previously stated that there were eight Parkland doctors who reported seeing cerebellum. It appears I was wrong. According to my further research, it seems it was ten doctors, not eight. (Apparently, judging from the posts above, it may be even more than ten.) It doesn't matter to me anymore. I had a little epiphany. My first instinct was to come in here and trumpet my discovery of two additional doctors that said they saw cerebellum, but then I figured; what's the use? It could be a hundred and ten doctors saying so, and those people that wish to believe that the doctors didn't see cerebellum would still believe that the doctors didn't see cerebellum. That's where the VIP issue comes in and it becomes more of a larger philosophical question for me. At least ten doctors reported seeing cerebellum... on the single most important patient of their entire careers. If they all got it wrong, then what the hell are we doing with our lives here? If we can't trust the observations of double-digits of educated and experienced doctors who were all viewing the most important patient they'd ever see, what *can* we trust? If those expert opinions aren't valid, are any expert opinions valid, or are we all to pretend that we're the real experts? Do we really think we're smarter and more qualified than all the doctors with medical education and medical experience, and who actually were in the same room as JFK, and saw his body as it was in color and 3D? Apparently, some of us here do. I can already read the rebuttals: "Just because they're doctors doesn't make them always right!" Of course. As I see it, the fact that people make mistakes is no logical reason to then assume that all of doctors who saw JFK at Parkland and said they observed cerebellum all made the exact same mistake all at the exact same time. In my view, logical thinking suggests the opposite; that the chances of all of them making the same mistaken observation of cerebellum is nearly zero. If they were really making big mistakes or seeing things that weren't really there, logic suggest there would be many differing observations, not the same one. All of them mistaken? All of them hallucinating? I don't believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 3 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said: If doctors say they saw cerebellum when in reality they didn't, I don't know how it could be framed as anything but a mass hallucination. From what I've read, doctors can tell the difference between cerebrum and cerebellum by sight. If they actually saw cerebellum, then it follows that there was a hole in the back of Kennedy's head large enough to leak brain matter. I had been in here or in another thread on this topic where I had previously stated that there were eight Parkland doctors who reported seeing cerebellum. It appears I was wrong. According to my further research, it seems it was ten doctors, not eight. (Apparently, judging from the posts above, it may be even more than ten.) It doesn't matter to me anymore. I had a little epiphany. My first instinct was to come in here and trumpet my discovery of two additional doctors that said they saw cerebellum, but then I figured; what's the use? It could be a hundred and ten doctors saying so, and those people that wish to believe that the doctors didn't see cerebellum would still believe that the doctors didn't see cerebellum. That's where the VIP issue comes in and it becomes more of a larger philosophical question for me. At least ten doctors reported seeing cerebellum... on the single most important patient of their entire careers. If they all got it wrong, then what the hell are we doing with our lives here? If we can't trust the observations of double-digits of educated and experienced doctors who were all viewing the most important patient they'd ever see, what *can* we trust? If those expert opinions aren't valid, are any expert opinions valid, or are we all to pretend that we're the real experts? Do we really think we're smarter and more qualified than all the doctors with medical education and medical experience, and who actually were in the same room as JFK, and saw his body as it was in color and 3D? Apparently, some of us here do. I can already read the rebuttals: "Just because they're doctors doesn't make them always right!" Of course. As I see it, the fact that people make mistakes is no logical reason to then assume that all of doctors who saw JFK at Parkland and said they observed cerebellum all made the exact same mistake all at the exact same time. In my view, logical thinking suggests the opposite; that the chances of all of them making the same mistaken observation of cerebellum is nearly zero. If they were really making big mistakes or seeing things that weren't really there, logic suggest there would be many differing observations, not the same one. All of them mistaken? All of them hallucinating? I don't believe it. It's just not true that doctors would never mistake cerebrum for cerebellum. Outside of Clark, most of the doctors rarely, if ever, saw brain matter. It was not their specialty. They could no more differentiate between macerated cerebrum and cerebellum than your allergist could diagnose your leaky bowel. Once doctors move outside their specialty, they're just making educated guesses. And I know because I've had lots of doctors over the past few years. Far too many. Now, Clark, clearly, should have known the difference. And it's unclear if he ever came to believe he was wrong. But it seems likely he did, seeing as he denounced conspiracy theorists as money-starved wackos in the press, and buddied up to John Lattimer, single-assassin theorist extraordinaire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said: All of them mistaken? All of them hallucinating? I don't believe it. Statistically speaking, Denny, you have a very good reason not to believe what Pat et al claim. Suppose for a moment that the odds of a doctor or nurse getting the location of the gaping wound wrong is 50%, or 1/2. That's a coin toss. The odds of 20 doctors getting is wrong would be calculated as follows: (1/2) ^20 (^ means "to the power of") That is equal to 1 / 1,048,576, or roughly one in a million. So, the odds of all twenty Parkland professionals being wrong is less than one in a million... literally! Now, certainly a doctor correctly locating a wound would have better odds than a random coin toss. Let's conservatively suppose that his odds were twice better than a random coin toss. In that case, the odds of a doctor getting it right would be 75% or 3/4, and getting it wrong would be 25% or 1/4. Let's calculate the odds of all twenty Parkland professional getting it wrong. (1/4) ^20 This is equal to 1 / 1,099,512,000,000, or roughly one in a TRILLION. So, the odds of all twenty Parkland professionals being wrong is less than one in a TRILLION! And remember, this is based on the conservative assumption that the Parkland Professionals were only twice more likely to be right than a random coin toss! People like Pat Speer believe that something so unlikely actually happened! They would rather accept that than to accept the alternative, that some photos were faked. Incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now