WHY PAT SPEER OWES THE FAMILY OF DR. ROBERT McCLELLAND AN APOLOGY

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The only reason we are having this debate is because a single prominent forum member -- Pat Speer -- has an irrational, preconceived, notion that photographic evidence could not have been altered as part of the coverup.

Pat should be denounced for his ongoing massive use of cherry picking and misrepresentation in arguing his easily-demonstrable, wrong conclusion regarding the blowout wound. Not only because what he's doing is wrong, but because it confuses newbies. And newbies are the future of our cause.

 

Well, I guess I'm winning because you have stooped to just making stuff up. 

Of course, a photo could have been altered, but all of them? That's questionable. 

My point has long been that this body alteration/photo alteration, what have you, is unlikely...seeing as the supposedly altered evidence is 100% clear-cut evidence for more than one shooter...

The alterationists are, in effect, conceding that the available evidence is clear-cut proof for a single-assassin. And this is not only bad strategy--I mean, why concede a point that hasn't been argued--it is flat-out wrong. Total nonsense. 

As far as newbies...I've met a number of them, online and in person, and they generally find my approach refreshing. As discussed in a prior post...the body alterationists are at odds with the photo alterationists and this proves quite confusing to those trying to make sense of it all. I know because I was once one of them.

So I thought why not, by golly, see what this supposedly fake stuff actually shows? 

I spent years doing so. And then shared what l discovered with others. And then all hell broke loose...

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So, the first people to see something are not to be trusted. 

And the last people to see something are not to be trusted. 

 

You think that the order of witnesses matters but not quality? Pathetic.

Now you're cherry-picking methodology to support your preconceived conclusion.

 

6 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

And the people viewing it in the middle are only to be trusted if they claim the films and photos of this thing are fake. 

 

I never said that.

So now you're misrepresenting your adversary's argument in order to support your preconceived conclusion. Pathetic.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I spent years doing so. And then shared what l discovered with others. And then all hell broke loose...

 

Cherry-picking and misrepresentation are dishonest tactics. No wonder "all hell broke loose."

 

[Pat Speer]

21 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

The primary reason you have the latitude to engage in this kind of propaganda is that the members of the Parkland trauma team had so much reverence for the fallen President that they didn't want to say that they had lifted his head to inspect the large avulsive exit wound.

But in 2013, Doctor Don Teal Curtis (a first year resident at Parkland Hospital when he assisted in the efforts to resuscitate Kennedy) violated the taboo and revealed the following about how the large back-of-the head-wound was identified by Dr. Kemp Clark lifting the President's head:

_______________

"...With another surgeon beginning a tracheotomy to open the president’s airway, Curtis went to the president’s leg to begin what he called a “cut-down” procedure.

He explained that the cut-down procedure was to insert a tube for the rapid insertion of fluids into the patient’s bloodstream to compensate for blood loss.

It was then that he noticed brain matter on the president’s pants leg. He added the comment that “brain matter is very easily recognizable.”

As he was beginning the cut-down procedure and another doctor was beginning the tracheotomy, a third doctor moved around to the president’s head and lifted it so he could examine the president for any wounds that were not visible from his position, lying on his back. As soon as the doctor lifted the president’ head, he said, “Stop resuscitation. This is not compatible with life.”

Curtis reported that each senior physician, and there were several in the room by then, looked at Kennedy’s head.

Curtis also looked, and he told the audience “the posterior part of his head was blown out.”

Curtis, who had become very familiar with entrance and exit wounds during his trauma room work at Parkland, said that there was no doubt in his mind that the exit wound on the president’s head was at the back...."

'PHYSICIAN DISCUSSES JFK ASSASSINATION'
JAMES BARRINGTON Canyon News staff | Nov. 9, 2013 | https://www.myplainview.com/news/canyon/article/Physician-discusses-JFK-assassination-8419070.php

_______________

Dr. Robert McClelland in a note to researcher Vince Palamara wrote:

"I looked directly into the wound from a distance of about 18 inches for over 10 uninterrupted minutes and thus saw the wound better than any of the other medical witnesses ."

Dr. McClelland must have remained with the body of the President to inspect the wound further after the other physicians had given it a cursory glance, and he probably had the head turned to the left side to do so.

It's inconvenient facts like this which stand in the way of your mission that make it such a high priority for you to demonize and discredit Dr. McClelland, right?

What is your obsession with McClelland? He is but one of many back of the head witnesses. And he is the most unreliable of these seeing as his initial report described one wound, a wound of the left temple. 

I would apologize to McClellland's family if they felt I'd done him a disservice by questioning his memory. I can do that. No problem, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. No big deal. But the hypocrisy of people like yourself is monumental, in that you go bananas when I question the accuracy of McClelland's recollections, but have no problem assuming men like Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, and Baxter, were flat-out XXXXX. Well, these were McClelland's friends. He would never have said that about them, and would not have wanted people defending his honor (or whatever you think you're defending) to attack them in such a manner. 

So, there, the tables are turned. I am now the one defending McClelland's honor. 

[Sandy Larsen]

9 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The alterationists are, in effect, conceding that the available evidence is clear-cut proof for a single-assassin. And this is not only bad strategy....

 

What does strategy have to do with searching for the truth?

I don't give a damn whether I prove a conspiracy or if I prove a lone nut scenario. I don't give a damn on what strategy is best to win an argument either way. I am only interested in the truth. And I will use only honest tactics in my search for it.

Damn the strategies! Damn the preconceived notions! Damn the dishonest tactics!

 

[Pat Speer]

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Cherry-picking and misrepresentation are dishonest tactics. No wonder "all hell broke loose."

 

Oh my!!! Your hypocrisy knows no bounds!!! You just admitted you only accepted the recollections of a select group of witnesses, whose only qualification was that you liked what they said...They didn't have to have been a doctor. They didn't have to have viewed the wounds for more than few seconds. And they didn't have to have written anything down or have been interviewed in the days/years/decades after the assassination. All they had to do was say what you liked at one point or another and then have refused to change their recollection if shown a photo in contradiction to what they recalled. 

That is the very definition of cherry-picking. 

Edited January 7 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What does strategy have to do with searching for the truth?

I don't give a damn whether I prove a conspiracy or if I prove a lone nut scenario. I don't give a damn on what strategy is best to win an argument either way. I am only interested in the truth. And I will use only honest tactics in my search for it.

Damn the strategies! Damn the preconceived notions! Damn the dishonest tactics!

 

Sorry, Sandy, but your very words prove you to not be who you think you are.

[Keven Hofeling]

On 1/6/2024 at 5:22 PM, David Von Pein said:

You're all mixed up. I'm not suggesting McClelland is putting his hand on the SIDE of his head at all. Quite the contrary. He's definitely putting his hand over the BACK of his head (just as I said in my prior post).

 

Well good, you are conceding then that Dr. McClelland's account of a large avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head as McClelland delineated with the circular motion of his fingers in this clip from the 1988 PBS Nova episode is accurate:

But if you are conceding that, then you must also be conceding that the depictions of a huge cavernous wound in JFK's forehead of the Zapruder film headshot sequence are fraudulent, right?

Or, if you feel I've taken your concession too far, then how do you reconcile your concession that JFK had a large avulsive wound in the back of his head with the imagery of a catastrophic anterior head wound depicted in the extant Zapruder film.

I don't see how you can have it both ways.

Edited January 24 by Keven Hofeling

[David Von Pein]

50 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

you are conceding then that Dr. McClelland's account of a large avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head...is accurate.

I concede no such stupid thing. The autopsy photos & X-rays & the Z-Film prove (for all time)---in tandem---the fact that there was definitely NO large hole in the BACK of Kennedy's cranium, regardless of what ANY of the Parkland doctors said they saw.

 

58 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

then you must also be conceding that the depictions of a huge cavernous wound in JFK's forehead of the Zapruder film headshot sequence are fraudulent, right?

There is no wound in JFK's "forehead". You're mixed up (again).

 

[Keven Hofeling]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

What is your obsession with McClelland? He is but one of many back of the head witnesses. And he is the most unreliable of these seeing as his initial report described one wound, a wound of the left temple. 

I would apologize to McClellland's family if they felt I'd done him a disservice by questioning his memory. I can do that. No problem, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. No big deal. But the hypocrisy of people like yourself is monumental, in that you go bananas when I question the accuracy of McClelland's recollections, but have no problem assuming men like Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, and Baxter, were flat-out XXXXX. Well, these were McClelland's friends. He would never have said that about them, and would not have wanted people defending his honor (or whatever you think you're defending) to attack them in such a manner. 

So, there, the tables are turned. I am now the one defending McClelland's honor. 

Quote

What is your obsession with McClelland? He is but one of many back of the head witnesses. And he is the most unreliable of these seeing as his initial report described one wound, a wound of the left temple.

The only evidence you have to offer in support of your assertion that I am "obsessed" with Dr. McClelland is your thoroughly discredited canard that Dr. McClelland described only a left temple wound in his first day Admission Note at Parkland hospital? I so thoroughly debunked that notion of yours (after Dr. Aguilar, Sandy Larson and many others have done so as well over the span of the last decade) that you don't even dare respond to that post [Practice Tip for newbies: You can always tell when Mr. Speer knows that he is wrong because he refuses to respond to information he cannot refute].

Prove me wrong by responding to that post.

Quote

I would apologize to McClellland's family if they felt I'd done him a disservice by questioning his memory.

You are attempting to set up a straw man by misrepresenting that you have merely questioned McClelland's memory. The truth is that you have accused him of affirmatively lying about his professional observations as a doctor, being guilty of medical malpractice, and of profiteering from one of the most terrible events in this nation's history by selling exploitive souvenir drawings and notes derived from his experience as a witness. By so grievously understating your persistent and ongoing libelous and unconscionable attacks against Dr. McClelland's integrity and professionalism, you reveal your self-awareness (guilty knowledge) of the egregiousness of your actions and turn insult into injury. The McClelland family is entitled to a public apology from you.

Quote

But the hypocrisy of people like yourself is monumental, in that you go bananas when I question the accuracy of McClelland's recollections, but have no problem assuming men like Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, and Baxter, were flat-out XXXXX. Well, these were McClelland's friends. He would never have said that about them, and would not have wanted people defending his honor (or whatever you think you're defending) to attack them in such a manner.

Yet another attempt to utilize the straw man fallacy to your advantage. The earliest testimony of Drs. Baxter, Carrico, Jenkins and Perry as to JFK's large avulsive back-of-the-head wound is just as problematic for your limited hangout crusade against historical accuracy as McClelland's, and your insinuation that I have ever even hinted otherwise smells of desperation on your part. 

If you had even the faintest inkling of what it means to be an honest broker, you would not be resorting to distortions and logical fallacies in this manner, and you would not be warrantlessly attacking honest brokers like Robert McClelland.

The McClelland family is entitled to a public apology from you.

Quote

So, there, the tables are turned. I am now the one defending McClelland's honor. 

You spout off with some straw man arguments calculated to deflect from your personal culpability for deliberately and persistently defaming Dr. McClelland, and to you that is somehow tantamount to defending Dr. McClelland's honor?

You are just digging yourself deeper and deeper.

The McClelland family is entitled to a public apology from you.

 

Edited January 7 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

On 1/6/2024 at 7:39 PM, David Von Pein said:

I concede no such stupid thing. The autopsy photos & X-rays & the Z-Film prove (for all time)---in tandem---the fact that there was definitely NO large hole in the BACK of Kennedy's cranium, regardless of what ANY of the Parkland doctors said they saw.

 

There is no wound in JFK's "forehead". You're mixed up (again).

 

You don't seem to understand how disputes about questionable photographic and X-ray evidence are resolved in the real world.

 

This is the process by which fraudulent photographs -- like the JFK back-of-the-head autopsy photograph -- are excluded from evidence (except to prove fraud) in American courtrooms...

 

FRE 402 HEARING RESULTING IN FINDING THAT AUTOPSY MATERIALS ARE INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE -- EXCEPT TO PROVE FRAUD:

The evidentiary dispute about whether the autopsy photographs were authenticated or are fraudulent -- as well as the Autopsy Protocol and X-rays [and the Zapruder film would also be subject to a similar legal process]) would result in a 402 evidentiary hearing pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence where members of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel would be subjected to cross examination about the voluminous medical evidence they were denied by the HSCA; Robert Groden (photographic consultant to the HSCA) and Dr. David Mantik would present testimony about the BOH photographs being proven to have matte inserts by stereoscopic testing of the purported "originals"; and there would be a long list of 11/22/1963 first day witnesses (the records and testimony of those who are deceased would be admitted into evidence under the official records exception to the hearsay rule) whose testimony would demonstrate that the extant autopsy photographs, X-rays, autopsy report and Zapruder film misrepresent the true nature of JFK's wounds. The court would exclude the autopsy evidence EXCEPT FOR PURPOSES OF PROVING FRAUD, and the matter would proceed to trial on the basis of the admissible records and testimony.
_____________
Digital and photographic evidence is thrown out of courtrooms every day once shown by multiple testimonial witnesses to be fraudulent. Photographic fakery is more common than most people realize.

Disputed photographic evidence must be authenticated in a Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 402 evidentiary hearing before being admitted into evidence, and if found to be fraudulent (most often as the result of conflicting testimonial evidence), it is excluded as evidence and very often ruled to be admissible ONLY to prove fraud.

With regard to the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs in particular in the JFK case, we are not talking about just 1 or 2 witnesses that dispute their veracity, BUT OVER 40 WITNESSES WHO DO. And it's not just a mere matter of those witnesses having widely varying accounts of the back-of-the head wound actually seen on 11/22/1963; the vast majority of them describe the actual wound as being in the same location, and having virtually the same characteristics, placing defenders of the authenticity of the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs in the impossible position of claiming it is mere coincidence that 40+ witnesses were not only wrong, BUT WRONG IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. This simply isn't going to go ever well in an American courtroom. The back-of-the head autopsy photographs would be found to be fraudulent and excluded from evidence except to prove fraud.
 

James DiEugenio recently made a very interesting post in this forum a few months ago about how the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs would be evaluated in a FRE 402 hearing that is probably pretty close to how it would actually transpire, as follows:
_____________
"As I have said before, if one was defending Oswald one would be able to call pretrial evidentiary hearings all day and night for a week, or more. Maybe longer.

I learned something about these by working on Oliver's film. Since we dealt with professionals in the field who were familiar with these proceedings: Henry Lee, Brian Edwards, Bob Tanenbaum, Cyril Wecht. (Strange that the Arizona drug crimes advisor does not deal with these things is it not?)

This is what would occur:

1. The defense attorney would ask why there were no identifying labels on any of the pictures.

2. He would then call John Stringer to the stand, since he was the photographer of record, and ask him why this was so. And why he did not follow his usual protocol either in that or the series of photos he said he usually took, which was close up, medium shot, context shot, especially for impacted areas.

3. The lawyer would then ask him : what on earth was the mystery photo and why was it so badly posed that you cannot orient it?

4. He would then ask him: did you not say that the cerebellum was disrupted? Well, does it look disrupted to you here?

5. Mr. Stringer: Are you the only photographer on these pictures? He would likely say yes. The lawyer would then ask him: did you use Ansco film and press pack technique? He would say no. At this point the attorney would call Robert Knudsen to the stand.

6. Mr. Knudsen, did you take autopsy pictures on the night JFK was killed? He would say yes. Can you tell me by experience and observation what film was used in these pictures of Kennedy's brain? Yes, that is Ansco. What technique was used, he would say that is from a press pack.

7. Mr Knudsen, did you see photos of probes in Kennedy's body? Yes I did. Are you aware that those pictures do not exist? Yes I am.

8. Call Stringer back to the stand: Did you cooperate on a supposed inventory of the pictures for the DOJ in about 1965? Yes I did. Does that inventory say all the pictures are accounted for? Yes it does. You yourself knew that was a false statement. Yes I did. Why did you sign it? Well, you have to go along sometimes to get along. Lawyer says, but some people don't. Stringer says: but they don't last very long.

9. At this point the lawyer now displays the BOH photo on a screen. He now begins to parade 40 witnesses from Bethesda and Parkland. One by one over a period of about 2 hours they say that something is missing from that photo, something they all remember. Namely a baseball sized cavity.

10. And now, the icing on the cake. The attorney produces pics of the Harper fragment. He calls Dr. Noteboom to the stand. He says: yes I examined that bone fragment in Dallas. And yes I agree it came from the occipital area as the two other pathologists who examined it in Dallas also thought. The lawyer asks, where is it now: Noteboom says Burkley gave it to the FBI who lost it. Lawyer says: how convenient. The lawyer then asks: but if that analysis was correct, how do you explain this picture? After staring at the photo for a moment or two, Noteboom says: beats the heck out of me. Lawyer says: I think we all feel that way about this whole subject.

Your honor, I move to have the autopsy pictures ruled inadmissible.

Judge: Motion is sustained.

Bugliosi starts stamping his feet, and yelling objections.

Judge: Mr. Bugliosi if you continue to act like this you will be charged with contempt. This is not some show trial like you did in London. This is for real.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28751-the-402-hearings-on-the-autopsy-pictures/

 

Edited January 25 by Keven Hofeling

[Michael Crane]

Damn them unaltered JFK X-rays.

:-)

 

This poor guy has got a bat in his skull.

Edited January 7 by Michael Crane

[Keven Hofeling]

11 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Damn them unaltered JFK X-rays.

🙂

 

This poor guy has got a bat in his skull.

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You think that the order of witnesses matters but not quality? Pathetic.

Now you're cherry-picking methodology to support your preconceived conclusion.

 

 

I never said that.

So now you're misrepresenting your adversary's argument in order to support your preconceived conclusion. Pathetic.

 

What kind of nonsense is this? 

You think the decades-after Parkland employees are "quality" witnesses?

Says who? Says you? Because you want to believe them? 

IF you actually did any research, you'd know that the accuracy of witness recollections degrades over time.

And you would also know that people who've seen lots of car crashes, or lots of gunshot wounds, etc, are more likely to  make mistakes when recalling the specifics of a particular car crash or gunshot wound, due to their exposure to many car crashes and gun shot wounds etc. Because their mistaken recollection will feel more "familiar" to them than to someone who has never seen a car crash or a gunshot wound before. 

And, heck, if you'd actually paid attention, you'd realize most of the latter-day witnesses saw JFK for but a few seconds, and made no notes, and failed to file a report or give an interview for decades afterwards, and only came forward after being contacted by someone with an agenda.

These are not "quality" witnesses. Far from it. 

 

 

Edited January 7 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Cherry-picking and misrepresentation are dishonest tactics. No wonder "all hell broke loose."

Oh my!!! Your hypocrisy knows no bounds!!! You just admitted you only accepted the recollections of a select group of witnesses, whose only qualification was that you liked what they said.

 

I DEMAND THAT YOU QUIT MISREPRESENTING ARGUMENTS I MAKE!!!!!

I said that I qualify witnesses based on the QUALITY of their observation, NOT by whether I "liked what they said."

This is yet one more example of how you misrepresent things. Shame on you!