Why do some conspiracy theorists accept the X-rays and autopsy photos as genuine?

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Wait. You're stating it's a FACT that I am the only researcher to believe the autopsy photos are legit?

 

That's not what I said. Here is what I said:

"The one thing there IS a consensus on for most prominent CT researchers is that the gaping hole was on the back of the head. You're the only notable holdout."

In response you mocked me. I see you still haven't removed that.

 

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I asked you in my last post...Did you or did you not once brag that you preferred not to read what others have written? If not, and I'm mistaken, well, yeah, I owe you an apology. But you haven't denied that yet, so I'm guessing what I wrote is true.

 

I never said what you are attributing to me.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

23 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The point I was making was in reply to your comment that "There is no visible indication of skull and brain fragments being 'blasted out' of the back of JFK's head at Z-313 of the Zapruder film as there should be, based upon witness testimony." I explained that the length of time the shutter was closed could have allowed any horizontal debris to fly out of sight between frames 312 and 313. I assume you accept that this is a plausible explanation for that apparent anomaly.

I'm not sure what the roses have to do with anything. The roses were in sunlight; the back of JFK's head was in shadow.

No, genuine Hollywood cinematographers have performed content analysis on the Zapruder film frames with the black patch and concluded that they are the product of crude 1963 era special effects, not shadows -- and even Rollie Zavada conceded that the black hexagon shaped D-Max black patch with sharp edges seen on the back of Kennedy's head in Z-317 "could be an alteration" (See below) -- and my point about Jackie Kennedy's red roses is that Abraham Zapruder's Bell & Howell 8mm camera had no problem vividly detecting the red color and therefore should also have detected the blood and gore at the back of President Kennedy's head just as the eyes of multiple witnesses did... 

 

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 Zapruder film. Among them are genuine cinematography professionals such as Ned Price (https://studentfilmreviews.org/?p=17707 ), Paul Rutan, Jr. (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0751876/ ) and Leo Zahn (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0951991/ ). 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...."

 

Note that 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 presented to Zavada 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 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

 

Edited January 21 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

That's not what I said. Here is what I said:

"The one thing there IS a consensus on for most prominent CT researchers is that the gaping hole was on the back of the head. You're the only notable holdout."

In response you mocked me. I see you still haven't removed that.

 

 

I never said what you are attributing to me.

 

Dr. Randy Robertson has been writing about the case for 30 years. He is active in organizations which put on conferences, and has been a regular attendee at conferences over the years. He has also viewed the autopsy materials at the archives, and was the first researcher to view the photos taken by Floyd Riebe, once developed. These photos, to be clear, were establishing shots taken at the beginning of the autopsy, before the Secret Service took away his camera, and exposed the film to light. The film was not destroyed, however, and the ARRB had it developed. Robertson viewed the photos and published his conclusions after doing so. Here is his conclusion about the authenticity of the photos:: 

"The original photographs and radiographs provide a degree of fidelity unchallengeable by any eyewitness attempts to describe the wounds to the President’s head in any manner. There are no internal discrepancies between the original and newly available photographs taken at the same time during the autopsy, or between any of the individual photographs or radiographs. Two cameras were simultaneously recording the true condition of the President’s body at the start of the autopsy."

Now, our friend Dr. Aguilar has made no effort to view the Riebe photos for himself. And there's a reason for this. Because he knows Dr. Robertson and knows Dr. Robertson is telling the truth. 

So, calling me the only notable holdout is an insult to Robertson. As stated, I came into the research community armed with the presumption the back of the head photo was a fake, and only came to believe otherwise after spending years researching the case, and getting to know many of the most prominent researchers, and recognizing their limitations. So, no, I am not a holdout to their way of thinking. I have in fact evolved from their way of thinking. 

 

[Keven Hofeling]

On 1/20/2024 at 12:16 AM, Pat Speer said:

Yes, of course, the cowlick entry was a hoax. That was the point of my video series. The slide above shows that the red spot in the cowlick that was called an entry did not match the proportions of the entry discussed in the autopsy report. While everyone knows the report's description of a wound to the right and slightly above the EOP is at odds with the cowlick entry, moreover, I believe I was the first to prove the red spot is not an inch to the right of midline, nowhere close. It is absolutely positively not the wound described in the autopsy report. It was in the wrong vertical location, wrong horizontal location. It had the wrong proportions and did not match the description provided for the wound. 

Once one realizes that, moreover, one realizes that the autopsy photos fail to support the HSCA's analysis of the photos.

Once one studies the case, one realizes why--that the Clark Panel was asked to solve the riddle of the low entry/high exit, and just decided to move the wound. This parallels what happened with the back wound, moreover. The autopsy doctors were asked to solve the problem of the back wound being higher than the throat wound, and voila! they showed up at their depositions with drawings in which the back wound was two inches or so higher than the throat wound, and two inches or more higher than its location as shown in the photos. 

So, in short, the problem was not that the body was altered, or that the photos were faked, it was that the doctors tasked with analyzing and presenting the medical evidence misrepresented what was demonstrated in the photos.

And the problem doesn't stop with those pushing the Oswald-did-it agenda. Those who've pushed conspiracy have been also guilty of misrepresenting the evidence.

 

Quote

So, in short, the problem was not that the body was altered, or that the photos were faked, it was that the doctors tasked with analyzing and presenting the medical evidence misrepresented what was demonstrated in the photos.

Mr. Speer, is it really true that the supposed "entry wound" "was demonstrated" in the autopsy photograph of the back of the head? Could you please point out to us the exact location of this "entry wound" in the photograph?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Dr. Randy Robertson has ... viewed the autopsy materials at the archives, and was the first researcher to view the photos taken by Floyd Riebe, once developed. ...

 

Pat Speer tells a story of a researcher who thinks like him. His name is Dr. Randy Robertson.

Recall that Bethesda photographer Floyd Riebe took a number of photographs at the autopsy, when the Secret Service took his camera and intentionally exposed the roll of film to light. Thus ruining the negatives.

Well, Kodak was subsequently able to recover THREE photos from the roll. Presumably the film had not been fully pulled from the canister, thus sparing those three negatives.

Dr. Robertson viewed those photos at the National Archive and reported his findings, and several conclusions, here.

Pat chose to post the following of Dr. Robertson's conclusions here in this thread, as if it attests to the authenticity of the extant autopsy photos:

 

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Dr. Robertson's conclusion:

"The original photographs and radiographs provide a degree of fidelity unchallengeable by any eyewitness attempts to describe the wounds to the President’s head in any manner. There are no internal discrepancies between the original and newly available photographs taken at the same time during the autopsy, or between any of the individual photographs or radiographs. Two cameras were simultaneously recording the true condition of the President’s body at the start of the autopsy."

 

But in reality, it does no such thing. Here's why:

The devil is in the detail. As I said, only THREE of Riebe's photos survived. The three that survived are:

• The view of the left side of the head.
• The view of the right side of the head, showing strands of scalp hanging down.
• The view of the top of the head, showing strands of scalp hanging down.

Well jeez, AFAIK, the only autopsy photos that are thought to be fake, by most researchers, are the ones showing the BACK OF THE HEAD.

So it is no surprise that the three Riebe photos Dr. Robertson saw, look just like the extant ones we've all seen!

In other words, the three Riebe photos add nothing to the debate!

 

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, our friend Dr. Aguilar has made no effort to view the Riebe photos for himself. And there's a reason for this. Because he knows Dr. Robertson and knows Dr. Robertson is telling the truth.

 

Well so what? Dr. Aguilar knows that Dr. Robertson's adventure to the National Archives yielded nothing new. Why would Dr. Aguilar waste his time looking at photos that show nothing new?

 

[Chris Davidson]

The "Shell" game created by the WC and carried on by the HSCA. (Liaison- Gerald Ford) imo

[Chris Davidson]

[Tom Gram]

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

An exit wound for a FMJ bullet does not entail a large amount of missing scalp and skull...unless it is actually a tangential wound. Clark noted the missing scalp and said both in the press conference and in his testimony that the wound appeared to be a tangential wound. So, no, the wound he studied was not a simple exit wound for a bullet entering elsewhere.

How sure are we that there was actually a significant amount of missing scalp, as opposed to just jagged tearing? Humes’ ARRB deposition doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, to put it mildly, but he did claim that the actual amount of missing scalp was minimal: 

Q. Was scalp missing from that same--from those same measurements? 
A. Not as much scalp. There was some scalp missing, but we were able to pretty much close the scalp, skin, when we finished everything. So I can't tell you how much was--but it was not that much skin missing, no. 
Q. So mostly skull fragments-- 
A. Right. 
Q. --but not the scalp itself? 
A. Right. Right. 
Q. Was there any scalp on any of the fragments that you received later in the evening-- 
A. No. 
Q. --that you referred to? 
A. No. 
Q. So there was no scalp that came to the autopsy room-- 
A. No. 
Q. --during the course of the autopsy? 
A. There was none. 
Q. When the embalming process was completed, approximately how much scalp was missing? 

A. Oh, I don't know. Maybe three or four centimeters, something like that. Not much. We were able to--you can undermine the skin, you know, and we pretty much closed it. We didn't have enough bone to completely close that part of the defect, and we had--one of the people who was around and very helpful was our chief of surgery, Dr. David Osborne. And we went to--he went to the operating room and brought back some rubber dam, which is material that is used in surgery not infrequently to cover a variety of different kinds of defects. And we used a rubber dam to help us close the skull bone. But I don't think we had to add anything to the scalp. 
Q. Approximately where was the missing scalp as of the time that the embalming process was completed? 
A. You got me--I don't think there was--I mean, we were able to close it by undermining and stretching and so forth. I don't recall that we didn't completely close--I think we completely closed the skin and the scalp. 

Q. Without stretching the scalp, just, you know, basically how much scalp was actually missing at the time that the body arrived at Bethesda? 
A. You know, I couldn't--it would be a rough guess. Maybe four or five centi--three or four centimeters, something like that. Probably, because it was all torn, you see, with serrated-- and there were--it wasn't like a punch that was punched out. It was torn apart, you know. So I have a hard time estimating that. 
Q. Do you have any knowledge as to where the missing skull--or missing scalp was? 
A. No. It wasn't that much I'm telling you. It was more torn than missing. 

A lot of Humes’ deposition reads like BS, and Jeremy Gunn agreed. Humes also doesn’t seem very sure about the missing scalp, so this is light years away from being conclusive evidence of anything.

However, IF, and it’s a big if, Humes’ description of “stellate” tearing and only a few centimeters of missing scalp is accurate, that is not necessarily inconsistent with an explosive exit from the inside. 

I’ve mentioned this before, but one major question I have about a tangential wound is the high fragment trail. The trail suggests that the bullet would have scattered fragments of various sizes in front of and behind the point of impact, and the physics of that seem tricky to reconcile since the bullet would’ve had so much forward momentum. I think you’ve stated that you believe the fragments were on the exterior of the skull, but some of the rear fragments in particular on the x-ray look to be inside the skull and underneath an area of intact bone. 

An x-ray of a tangential wound victim with a similar fragment pattern would go a long way, but I’ve never seen anything like that. 

Either way, as you know, the Z-film is a much more suggestive of a tangential impact than an explosive exit. The back-and-to-the left motion and more importantly IMO the skull fragments launching up in to the air at high speed seem very difficult if not impossible to reconcile with an exit from the inside.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone attempt to come up with a mechanism for the launching bone fragments in a “traditional” exit scenario, but I’d be curious to read something like that. 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Pat Speer tells a story of a researcher who thinks like him. His name is Dr. Randy Robertson.

Recall that Bethesda photographer Floyd Riebe took a number of photographs at the autopsy, when the Secret Service took his camera and intentionally exposed the roll of film to light. Thus ruining the negatives.

Well, Kodak was subsequently able to recover THREE photos from the roll. Presumably the film had not been fully pulled from the canister, thus sparing those three negatives.

Dr. Robertson viewed those photos at the National Archive and reported his findings, and several conclusions, here.

Pat chose to post the following of Dr. Robertson's conclusions here in this thread, as if it attests to the authenticity of the extant autopsy photos:

 

 

But in reality, it does no such thing. Here's why:

The devil is in the detail. As I said, only THREE of Riebe's photos survived. The three that survived are:

• The view of the left side of the head.
• The view of the right side of the head, showing strands of scalp hanging down.
• The view of the top of the head, showing strands of scalp hanging down.

Well jeez, AFAIK, the only autopsy photos that are thought to be fake, by most researchers, are the ones showing the BACK OF THE HEAD.

So it is no surprise that the three Riebe photos Dr. Robertson saw, look just like the extant ones we've all seen!

In other words, the three Riebe photos add nothing to the debate!

 

 

Well so what? Dr. Aguilar knows that Dr. Robertson's adventure to the National Archives yielded nothing new. Why would Dr. Aguilar waste his time looking at photos that show nothing new?

 

Ughh... Robertson's claim is that the original autopsy photos are consistent with each other AND that the Riebe photos prove these photos were taken of Kennedy during the autopsy. So the Riebe photos DO authenticate the back of the head photo, at least according to Robertson. 

it should be pointed out as well that a number of researchers--I think Livingstone? Groden?--had long claimed that the photos taken of JFK were not taken at Bethesda and/or that the back of the head photo was not even JFK. Robertson's viewing of the Riebe photos demolished this claim. 

As brought to our attention by Jerrol Custer, moreover, the photos show JFK on his back with his head in a stirrup. IF there had been a gigantic hole in the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing, this would not have been possible. Now, Custer mentioned this when discussing the x-rays. He took the x-rays. In order to take the A-P x-ray film would have to have been placed beneath the back of the head. Custer claimed he would not have placed film directly beneath a gaping hole oozing blood and brain matter, and that the back of the head was shattered, but remained beneath the scalp. And the x-rays he took show this fractured eggshell pattern he remembered. Which is why he signed off on the authenticity of the x-rays when speaking before the ARRB. 

 

Edited January 21 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The "Shell" game created by the WC and carried on by the HSCA. (Liaison- Gerald Ford) imo

I have written what amounts to several books on this subject, Chris. And  you are correct if you mean to suggest the trajectory analysis was a con. When the medical panel alerted Canning to the fact they'd changed their minds about the entrance location, he realized that this would change the horizontal angle of the bullet through the skull, as well as the vertical angle. And he'd already testified to the trajectory's pointing back to the sniper's nest.

So he shrunk the skull. This is discussed ad nauseam in chapter 15 at patspeer.com. 

Edited January 21 by Pat Speer

[Keven Hofeling]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Ughh... Robertson's claim is that the original autopsy photos are consistent with each other AND that the Riebe photos prove these photos were taken of Kennedy during the autopsy. So the Riebe photos DO authenticate the back of the head photo, at least according to Robertson. 

it should be pointed out as well that a number of researchers--I think Livingstone? Groden?--had long claimed that the photos taken of JFK were not taken at Bethesda and/or that the back of the head photo was not even JFK. Robertson's viewing of the Riebe photos demolished this claim. 

As brought to our attention by Jerrol Custer, moreover, the photos show JFK on his back with his head in a stirrup. IF there had been a gigantic hole in the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing, this would not have been possible. Now, Custer mentioned this when discussing the x-rays. He took the x-rays. In order to take the A-P x-ray film would have to have been placed beneath the back of the head. Custer claimed he would not have placed film directly beneath a gaping hole oozing blood and brain matter, and that the back of the head was shattered, but remained beneath the scalp. And the x-rays he took show this fractured eggshell pattern he remembered. Which is why he signed off on the authenticity of the x-rays when speaking before the ARRB. 

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

As brought to our attention by Jerrol Custer, moreover, the photos show JFK on his back with his head in a stirrup. IF there had been a gigantic hole in the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing, this would not have been possible. Now, Custer mentioned this when discussing the x-rays. He took the x-rays. In order to take the A-P x-ray film would have to have been placed beneath the back of the head. Custer claimed he would not have placed film directly beneath a gaping hole oozing blood and brain matter, and that the back of the head was shattered, but remained beneath the scalp. And the x-rays he took show this fractured eggshell pattern he remembered. Which is why he signed off on the authenticity of the x-rays when speaking before the ARRB.

Dismantling a House of Sand: Exposing the Fragile Foundations of Your Argument

1. Speculation Runs Riot, Citations Remain Elusive: You failed to specify when and where Jerrol Custer made these claims, which considering the hatchet job you have done on Dr. Robert McClelland based upon distortions of what is otherwise a very clear record (as to McClelland's first day Admission Note for JFK, for example), we really are entitled to have such citations from you. This glaring omission casts a long shadow over your entire argument, reducing it to a shaky edifice built on the shifting sands of speculation. While you gleefully wield distortions of Dr. McClelland's clear record, your own house of cards lacks the cornerstone of verifiable references. Before demanding answers, Mr. Accuser, provide the evidence to substantiate your own accusations.

2. Custer's Shifting Sands: Convenience or Contradiction? You claim Custer has at some point prostrated himself before the "authenticity" of the autopsy photos and X-Rays. Yet, you conveniently forget his earlier 1988 statements, documented in KRON's "An Unsolved Murder," where he sang a different tune. He disputed that the X-rays presented to him by KRON were consistent with those he had taken at the autopsy and he acknowledged a massive avulsive wound extending low into the right rear of JFK's head. This inconvenient truth, ignored in your selective narrative, exposes the cracks in your meticulously constructed facade.

3. Stirrup of Misdirection: Deception Lurks in the Shadows: Your claim about the stirrup's incompatibility with a low rear wound is nothing but sleight of hand. A glance at the autopsy photos, from both left and right sides, reveals the critical detail you so conveniently omit. The stirrup rests higher on the right side, and the area near it (which is easily discernable by comparing the proximity of the stirrup to the left and right ears), for "multiple reasons," indeed warrants scrutiny. Moreover, your assertion that a low wound would render the stirrup useless is demonstrably false. Logic, accessible even to a kindergartener, dictates that an intact left side of the skull could easily support the head, even with a compromised right side. Once again, you attempt to twist facts into pretzels, deceiving with obfuscation rather than enlighten with evidence.

4. Evidence Echoes in the Silence: You demand evidentiary rigor from others while offering nothing tangible yourself. This double standard exposes the hollowness of your claims. It's time you abandoned the echo chamber of your own assumptions and stepped into the arena of verifiable facts. The burden of proof, Mr. Accuser, lies squarely on your shoulders.

In conclusion, your argument crumbles under the weight of its own inconsistencies. Distortion and speculation masquerading as evidence cannot withstand the scrutiny of logic and facts. Until you address the glaring omissions and provide concrete support for your claims, your accusations remain nothing more than a house of sand, destined to be washed away by the tide of truth.

 

Edited January 21 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

27 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Pat Speer wrote:

Dismantling a House of Sand: Exposing the Fragile Foundations of Your Argument

1. Speculation Runs Riot, Citations Remain Elusive: You failed to specify when and where Jerrol Custer made these claims, which considering the hatchet job you have done on Dr. Robert McClelland based upon distortions of what is otherwise a very clear record (as to McClelland's first day Admission Note for JFK, for example), we really are entitled to have such citations from you. This glaring omission casts a long shadow over your entire argument, reducing it to a shaky edifice built on the shifting sands of speculation. While you gleefully wield distortions of Dr. McClelland's clear record, your own house of cards lacks the cornerstone of verifiable references. Before demanding answers, Mr. Accuser, provide the evidence to substantiate your own accusations.

2. Custer's Shifting Sands: Convenience or Contradiction? You claim Custer has at some point prostrated himself before the "authenticity" of the autopsy photos and X-Rays. Yet, you conveniently forget his earlier 1988 statements, documented in KRON's "An Unsolved Murder," where he sang a different tune. He disputed that the X-rays presented to him by KRON were consistent with those he had taken at the autopsy and he acknowledged a massive avulsive wound extending low into the right rear of JFK's head. This inconvenient truth, ignored in your selective narrative, exposes the cracks in your meticulously constructed facade.

3. Stirrup of Misdirection: Deception Lurks in the Shadows: Your claim about the stirrup's incompatibility with a low rear wound is nothing but sleight of hand. A glance at the autopsy photos, from both left and right sides, reveals the critical detail you so conveniently omit. The stirrup rests higher on the right side, and the area near it (which is easily discernable by comparing the proximity of the stirrup to the left and right ears), for "multiple reasons," indeed warrants scrutiny. Moreover, your assertion that a low wound would render the stirrup useless is demonstrably false. Logic, accessible even to a kindergartener, dictates that an intact left side of the skull could easily support the head, even with a compromised right side. Once again, you attempt to twist facts into pretzels, deceiving with obfuscation rather than enlighten with evidence.

4. Evidence Echoes in the Silence: You demand evidentiary rigor from others while offering nothing tangible yourself. This double standard exposes the hollowness of your claims. It's time you abandoned the echo chamber of your own assumptions and stepped into the arena of verifiable facts. The burden of proof, Mr. Accuser, lies squarely on your shoulders.

In conclusion, your argument crumbles under the weight of its own inconsistencies. Distortion and speculation masquerading as evidence cannot withstand the scrutiny of logic and facts. Until you address the glaring omissions and provide concrete support for your claims, your accusations remain nothing more than a house of sand, destined to be washed away by the tide of truth.

 

I'm sorry Keven, but your arguments are all stuff from 20 years ago, that have either been debunked or addressed long ago. I have a few chapters on my website which discuss all this stuff with which you should familiarize yourself.

For example...Custer. Custer was shown the HSCA's computer enhanced x-rays with the face cut off. So of course he failed to recognize them. When shown the originals by the ARRB, he said holy moly that's my marker and yessiree those are the x-rays I took on 11-22-63.

Well, as you probably know, this upset Horne and Mantik's apple cart. So they put out the story that Custer was afraid of telling the truth or some such thing. Which is mighty insulting. And downright stupid, when you consider this was the later 90's, when there was little to be afraid of, in comparison to a decade before, when Custer was first painted as a conspiracy theorist. And this also avoided that even before he spoke to the ARRB, Custer had told researcher Tom Wilson  that there was a "king-sized hole" on the top of Kennedy's skull and that the skull was like "somebody took a hardboiled egg and just rolled it around until it was thoroughly cracked...Part of the head would bulge out, another part would sink in. The only thing that held it together was the skin. And even that was loose." 

Edited January 21 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Ughh... Robertson's claim is that the original autopsy photos are consistent with each other AND that the Riebe photos prove these photos were taken of Kennedy during the autopsy. So the Riebe photos DO authenticate the back of the head photo, at least according to Robertson.

 

The key phrase here is "according to Robertson."

It is he and only he who -- for his report -- determined that the back-of-head photos are consistent with the other autopsy photos. The Riebe photos played no role in his determination.

(The only role the Riebe photos played was to authenticate extant photos of 1) the left side, 2) the right side, and 3) the top of the head. Not the back of the head.)

Anybody who reads Dr. Robertson's report can see that that is the case.

Most prominent researchers believe that the back of the head was missing both scalp and bone. And that that is fully consistent with the other autopsy photos.

 

[Pat Speer]

26 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The key phrase here is "according to Robertson."

It is he and only he who -- for his report -- determined that the back-of-head photos are consistent with the other autopsy photos. The Riebe photos played no role in his determination.

(The only role the Riebe photos played was to authenticate extant photos of 1) the left side, 2) the right side, and 3) the top of the head. Not the back of the head.)

Anybody who reads Dr. Robertson's report can see that that is the case.

Most prominent researchers believe that the back of the head was missing both scalp and bone. And that that is fully consistent with the other autopsy photos.

 

I'm sorry, but if you think researchers doubting the authenticity of the back of the head photo do so because it's inconsistent with the other photos, well, you're flat-out wrong. 

Now, some researchers have come to believe that the back of the head in the back of the head photo was added in. And some researchers have claimed that the back of the head was reconstructed for the photo. And some, like McClelland, believed that scalp was pulled up to conceal the rear-most aspect of the wound. 

But that's because they choose to believe that...not because the other photos lead them to believe that. 

I mean, if the photos were inconsistent, wouldn't THAT be the focus of those pushing the back of the head was blown out, and not the subsequently withdrawn statements of a couple of doctors? 

And IF the photos were inconsistent, why would David Lifton and his supporters have been arguing that the body must have been altered before its arrival in the autopsy room? IF they were inconsistent, after all, it would indicate that the alteration was performed in front of the photographers, and that the photographers were knowingly documenting the alteration of the body. 

 

Edited January 21 by Pat Speer

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I'm sorry Kevin, but your arguments are all stuff from 20 years ago, that have either been debunked or addressed long ago. I have a few chapters on my website which discusses all this stuff with which you should familiarize yourself.

For example...Custer. Custer was shown the HSCA's computer enhanced x-rays with the face cut off. So of course he failed to recognize them. When shown the originals by the ARRB, he said holy moly that's my marker and yessiree those are the x-rays I took on 11-22-63.

Well, as you probably know, this upset Horne and Mantik's apple cart. So they put out the story that Custer was afraid of telling the truth or some such thing. Which is mighty insulting. And downright stupid, when you consider this was the later 90's, when there was little to be afraid of, in comparison to a decade before, when Custer was first painted as a conspiracy theorist. And this also avoided that even before he spoke to the ARRB, Custer had told researcher Tom Wilson  that there was a "king-sized hole" on the top of Kennedy's skull and that the skull was like "somebody took a hardboiled egg and just rolled it around until it was thoroughly cracked...Part of the head would bulge out, another part would sink in. The only thing that held it together was the skin. And even that was loose." 

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

For example...Custer. Custer was shown the HSCA's computer enhanced x-rays with the face cut off. So of course he failed to recognize them. When shown the originals by the ARRB, he said holy moly that's my marker and yessiree those are the x-rays I took on 11-22-63.

What, do you think, we are all just stupid, and cannot see the X-Rays Custer is looking at? These are the X-rays that were publicly available to everyone in 1988. Why in the world would you think that KRON was showing "the HSCA's computer enhanced x-rays with the face cut off", and why would you think you can pass that contrived story off on us to save your false narrative? You think we don't believe our own lying eyes?

Perhaps next time before you leap to making a fool out of yourself you should watch the video footage. If you had done so, you would have noted that Custer is disputing the anterior damage depicted by the X-Ray, and insisting that it should have been more posterior on the head. This was 1988, and Custer's earliest recollections are the ones that are by far more legally significant and reliable. Here is the video:

And here is Jerrol Custer disputing the autopsy photographs in 1988 along the exact same lines that he disputed the X-Rays. He insists that the large avulsive head wound should be visible in the back-of-the-head photograph because that is where he saw the wound at the autopsy, and it is his earliest recollections that are most significant (why you don't understand the ancient judicial principle that earliest in time is most credible I can only understand in terms of you cherry picking the accounts that favor your narrative, and that is just really sad).

Quote

Well, as you probably know, this upset Horne and Mantik's apple cart. So they put out the story that Custer was afraid of telling the truth or some such thing. Which is mighty insulting. And downright stupid, when you consider this was the later 90's, when there was little to be afraid of, in comparison to a decade before, when Custer was first painted as a conspiracy theorist. And this also avoided that even before he spoke to the ARRB, Custer had told researcher Tom Wilson  that there was a "king-sized hole" on the top of Kennedy's skull and that the skull was like "somebody took a hardboiled egg and just rolled it around until it was thoroughly cracked...Part of the head would bulge out, another part would sink in. The only thing that held it together was the skin. And even that was loose." 

I'm not any more impressed by the stories you tell about Horne and Mantik than I am by the stories you tell about Dr. McClelland and Jim Jenkens; they all crumble to dust when scrutinized.

And I've seen the videos of Custer with Harry Livingstone, Vince Palamara and Tom Wilson, and what I noticed in comparison with Custer's earlier appearances in David Lifton and Kron's productions is that it seemed like Custer had later gotten the idea that he was going to make a name for himself as an expert on the Kennedy assassination, and it seems to be in that context that he gave in to the social pressures and hopes of making it big that he started trying to change his earlier accounts about the evidence.

Why doesn't it surprise me that you were conned so easily?

Jerrol Custer told the truth when giving his earliest views about the lack of integrity of the evidence. That is the conclusion that jurors would reach upon seeing Custer cross-examined with reference to that earliest evidence, and there's nothing you can do about that except continue to spin your stories the way that we know you do...

 

Edited January 21 by Keven Hofeling