Pat Speer Says I'm a "STALKER" for Calling Him Out on His Jerrol Custer Misrepresentations...

[Keven Hofeling]

 

Quote

 

LOL.Why waste my time? You know damn well that people who've staked out a position--no matter how ill-informed--always double down on that position. If you had any desire to learn about me or what I've uncovered, you would have read a significant portion of my website before coming here in attack mode. So to me you're nothing but a waste of time, until proven otherwise. 

As far as Custer.... Here's what you would have known if you'd done the research...

From chapter 18c: 

While radiology tech Jerrol Custer made many statements over the years indicating that he thought the autopsy photos and X-rays were faked, he actually told the ARRB, after having finally been shown the original X-rays, that they were indeed the ones he took on 11-22-63, and that he had been in error. He even specified that the x-rays showed an absence of bone in the parietal region and the temporal region behind the right eye, but a presence of bone in the occipital region. Now, some will say "But of course he caved, he was scared to death" but they really haven't done their homework. Custer told the ARRB a number of things which defied the official story of the assassination. He just didn't tell them what so many conspiracy theorists wanted him to say.

And it's not as if he changed his statements for the ARRB. Custer was interviewed by Tom Wilson in 1995. As quoted in Donald Phillips' book on Wilson's research, A Deeper, Darker Truth (2009), Custer told Wilson there was a "King-sized hole" in the top right region of Kennedy's head, and that Kennedy's 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."

It should come as no surprise, then, that Custer pretty much repeated this in his 1997 testimony before the ARRB. He recalled: "The head was so unstable, due to the fractures. The fractures were extremely numerous. It was like somebody took a hardboiled egg, and just rolled it in their hand. And that's exactly what the head was like...This part of the head would come out. This part of the head would be in...The only thing that held it together was the skin. And even that was loose." He then described "a gaping hole in the right parietal region" and specified that "none" of the "missing" bone was occipital bone.

Don't believe me? When testifying before the ARRB, Custer added lines to an anatomy drawing of the rear view of the skull. The slanted lines represented the area of the skull that was unstable but extant beneath the scalp when he first viewed the body. Here it is:

The occipital bone was intact beneath the skin.

To wit, when asked by Jeremy Gunn if the wound on the back of the head stretched into the occipital bone (where Gunn's assistant Doug Horne and Horne's close associate David Mantik, among others, place the wound), Custer replied "The hole doesn't" and then clarified that the occipital region from the lambdoid suture to the occipital protuberance (basically the upper half of the occipital bone which Horne and Dr. Mantik claim was missing) "was all unstable material. I mean, completely." "Unstable" isn't "missing."

And this wasn't just a short-lived thing--a quick retreat before, and during questioning, by the government. In 1998, Custer was interviewed by William Law for his book In The Eye of History. When asked about the supposed wound on the back of the head, Custer corrected: "Here's where a lot of researchers screw up. Not the back of the head. Here's the back of the head (Custer then pointed to the area of the head in contact with the head holder in the left lateral autopsy photo). The occipital region. The defect was in the frontal-temporal region. Now, when you have the body lying like that, everybody points to it and says, 'That’s the back of the head.' No! That’s not the back of the head." He then pointed to the top of the head on the left lateral autopsy photo: "That’s the top of the head!" Law then asked Custer how, if the wound was where researchers claim it was, the head could have rested on the head holder used in the autopsy. Custer then specified: "Because the back of the head wasn’t blown out. This was still intact." (As he said this, he pointed to the lower portion of the back of the head in the left lateral autopsy photo). He continued: "It may not have been perfectly intact, there were fractures in there of course with all the destruction. If the back of the head was gone, there would be nothing there to hold the head up...The (head holder) would have been all inside."

Now this, of course, was years after the publication of Groden's book. Even so, when one watches Groden's video, JFK: The Case For Conspiracy, one can see that Custer was never really a "back of the head" witness, as he does not point out a wound on the back of Kennedy's head, as suggested by the frame used in Groden's book, but drags his hand across the entire top of his head while claiming the wound he saw stretched "From the top of the head almost to the base of the skull..." He was thereby describing the wound's appearance after the scalp was reflected, and the brain was removed. (In support of this proposition, it should be noted that he'd also claimed there was no brain in the skull that he could remember.)

Now I know this comes as a shock to many readers. Custer is a hero to those claiming the back of Kennedy's head was missing. Even though he is actually one of the strongest witnesses supporting that it was not missing. Just think of it. When preparing to take the A-P x-ray, Custer lifted Kennedy's head up to place it on the cassette holding the x-ray film. IF the back of Kennedy's head was missing, Kennedy's brain would have rested directly on this cassette. Custer would undoubtedly have noticed such a thing, and almost certainly have remembered such a thing. And yet Custer not only never mentioned such a thing, he actively disputed that such a thing occurred.

 

 

This is unresponsive and immaterial to the misrepresentations I have called you out on. Pasting blather from your website just will not do.

You claimed I don't know what I'm talking about, and I dared you to "prove it," but your cut and paste job falls far short of achieving that. Not even close.

The following are the Custer misrepresentations I have called you out on and is what you should be responding to rather than a pathetic cut and paste job that misses the mark entirely:

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

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. 

Mr. @Pat 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:

Your reliance on the Jerrol Custer deposition is nothing short of an act of self-sabotage. It's astonishing that you would stake your project by misrepresenting it the way that you have. One would expect you to steer researchers away from this deposition like it's the plague, yet you seem to be actively promoting it as if it's an uncontroversial pillar supporting your skewed version of reality, which a simple reading reveals that it is not. Are you so desperate to push your agenda that you're willing to sacrifice your credibility?

Or perhaps that is why you expended your "credibility" to assure fellow researchers that it is uncontroversial and supports your twisted version of reality, hoping to channel them toward more prosperous subjects for you, such as the Dallas physicians, who many years later, renounced their initial memories when confronted with the fraudulent autopsy photographs, and feared for their professional reputations.

The foundation of your entire project rests on these feeble sands of misinformation, but rest assured, your fellow researchers will soon see through this charade. It's only a matter of time before the shaky ground you've built upon crumbles beneath you.

Edited January 23 by Keven Hofeling

[Sean Coleman]

…..think you’re easily offended….

[Keven Hofeling]

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

Stalker. 

Seriously? You are really going to mount a "woke" defense like that to what I have clearly proven are material misrepresentations on your part? I would say "that is beneath you," but clearly it is not. 

Your feeble attempt to deflect from the issue at hand by resorting to name-calling is pathetic. I have presented concrete evidence of your misrepresentations, and instead of owning up to your deceit, you resort to baseless accusations. It's clear that you have no valid defense for your actions, so you resort to childish tactics in a feeble attempt to save face. But let me tell you, Mr. Speer, it's not working. Your lack of integrity is on full display for everyone to see, and no amount of name-calling will change that. It's time for you to face the truth and take responsibility for your dishonesty.

 

Edited January 24 by Keven Hofeling

[David Andrews]

Why do the heathen rage?...

[K K Lane]

I know nothing of the dispute prior to this post, but if a person calls you a stalker in a forum thread and your response is to create a new post naming him in the title and sharing a wall of text attacking him, then maybe....

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

…..think you’re easily offended….

 

3 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Why do the heathen rage?...

 

1 hour ago, K K Lane said:

I know nothing of the dispute prior to this post, but if a person calls you a stalker in a forum thread and your response is to create a new post naming him in the title and sharing a wall of text attacking him, then maybe....

 

In another thread, Pat Speer made a hard-to-believe claim about what Jerrol Custer said about taking an A-P x-ray of the president's head. I called him out for it, but my response was based on common sense, not evidence. In contrast, forum member Keven Hofeling did some research and found the proof that Pat was wrong. He presented that evidence, and Pat ultimately responded by calling Keven a stalker.

I believe that Keven created this thread specifically for that exchange because it is a perfect example of how Pat handles the medical evidence in order to make it appear to support his beliefs when in fact it does not.

When a researcher does dishonest things in order to push his beliefs, he SHOULD be called out for it, as it is damaging to the JFKA cause.

If the evidence were such that multiple conclusions could reasonably be made from it, then I would say that what Keven is doing with this thread is wrong. But Keven is most definitely right. And because of that I support him in making this thread.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I believe that Keven created this thread specifically for that exchange because it is a perfect example of how Pat handles the medical evidence in order to make it appear to support his beliefs when in fact it does not.

 

FWIW, I no longer believe that this Jerrol Custer case is a "perfect example" of how Pat handles the medical evidence in order to make it appear to support his beliefs when in fact it does not.

Because of something Pat said on another thread, I now believe that he simply made some mistakes -- which Keven called him on -- but wasn't willing to admit so.

Pat's misrepresentations regarding Dr. McClelland are much more serious.

IMO.

 

[Greg Doudna]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Because of something Pat said on another thread, I now believe that he simply made some mistakes -- which Keven called him on -- but wasn't willing to admit so.

Sandy I see things differently than you in a lot of ways but it is clear to me you have always attempted to be honest. I respect your comment here because it is what I see too. Pat Speer has done a massive amount of original research, all by his own policy and commendably put up on his website free access without attempting to monetize a thing. In the course of discussion of his research made minor errors from memory on nitpick level re the Custer x-rays. There is no way Pat is willfully attempting to deceive as Keven is trying to present. 

[Michael Griffith]

11 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy I see things differently than you in a lot of ways but it is clear to me you have always attempted to be honest. I respect your comment here because it is what I see too. Pat Speer has done a massive amount of original research, all by his own policy and commendably put up on his website free access without attempting to monetize a thing. In the course of discussion of his research made minor errors from memory on nitpick level re the Custer x-rays. There is no way Pat is willfully attempting to deceive as Keven is trying to present. 

Well, I must confess that I believe that Pat has been less than forthright on some occasions regarding the medical evidence. I base this on my many exchanges with him regarding the 6.5 mm object, the white patch, the autopsy brain photos vs. the EOP site, his misleading attacks on Dr. Mantik, and the bullet fragments removed from the brain. 

A few months ago, he made demonstrably false claims to me about what his book explains regarding the absence of cerebellar damage in the brain photos. When I called him on this, he refused to acknowledge his misstatements. 

However, I think his conduct stems more from a reluctance to admit error than from a chronic lack of candor. 

Moreover, I should also say that I believe that about 70% of Pat's research is valid and worthwhile. It is just most unfortunate that WC apologists frequently cite/quote the errant 30%.

[Pat Speer]

48 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Well, I must confess that I believe that Pat has been less than forthright on some occasions regarding the medical evidence. I base this on my many exchanges with him regarding the 6.5 mm object, the white patch, the autopsy brain photos vs. the EOP site, his misleading attacks on Dr. Mantik, and the bullet fragments removed from the brain. 

A few months ago, he made demonstrably false claims to me about what his book explains regarding the absence of cerebellar damage in the brain photos. When I called him on this, he refused to acknowledge his misstatements. 

However, I think his conduct stems more from a reluctance to admit error than from a chronic lack of candor. 

Moreover, I should also say that I believe that about 70% of Pat's research is valid and worthwhile. It is just most unfortunate that WC apologists frequently cite/quote the errant 30%.

Thanks, Michael. If 70% of my research is valid and worthwhile, I'm way ahead of the pack. 

[Keven Hofeling]

On 1/23/2024 at 10:20 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy I see things differently than you in a lot of ways but it is clear to me you have always attempted to be honest. I respect your comment here because it is what I see too. Pat Speer has done a massive amount of original research, all by his own policy and commendably put up on his website free access without attempting to monetize a thing. In the course of discussion of his research made minor errors from memory on nitpick level re the Custer x-rays. There is no way Pat is willfully attempting to deceive as Keven is trying to present. 

Greg Doudna wrote:

Quote

There is no way Pat is willfully attempting to deceive as Keven is trying to present. 

You've got to be kidding Mr. Doudna! After all of the following, you are still attempting to defend Mr. Speer's honesty and integrity?

Early in the morning of Sunday, January 21, 2024, in response to @Sandy Larsen's post calling him out for claiming that Dr. Randy Robertson's conclusions about the 3 autopsy photographs that Kodak had developed from Floyd Riebe's exposed film had authenticated the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs, Mr. Speer wrote:

"...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." 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526546

On Sunday afternoon, January 21, 2024, in response to Sandy Larsen's post arguing against his head stirrup claims, Mr. Speer again wrote:

"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

Commentary: Mr. Speer is here repeating his false claims about the Jerrol Custer ARRB deposition as if reading them from the deposition.

9:12 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: I posted a comprehensive refutation of Mr. Speer's claims that Jerrol Custer told the ARRB that he wouldn't have placed X-Ray film "directly beneath a gaping hole oozing blood and brain matter," supported by screenshots of the transcript of the ARRB deposition of Custer, pointing out that it had been Custer's testimony that there had not been a brain in JFK's skull at the time of the first X-rays and thereafter.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526695

9:22 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to my post of ten minutes prior as follows:

"Sadly, you have no idea what you are talking about. "The foundation of my entire project?" What a laugh!"

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526698

Commentary: It has been ten minutes since I posted to debunk Mr. Speer's Jerrol Custer claims, and most if not all of that time has been expended by him reading the post. Mr. Speer didn't review the deposition to make certain he wasn't mistaken, instead he exclaims that I simply have "no idea what [I'm] talking about."

9:25 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: I responded to Mr. Speer's 9:22 a.m. post as follows:

"Prove it."

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526700

9:33 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to my 9:25 a.m. post with a cut and paste of his website chapter about Jerrol Custer (which was completely unresponsive to my refutation of his claims), which he prefaced as follows:

"LOL.Why waste my time? You know damn well that people who've staked out a position--no matter how ill-informed--always double down on that position. If you had any desire to learn about me or what I've uncovered, you would have read a significant portion of my website before coming here in attack mode. So to me you're nothing but a waste of time, until proven otherwise. 

As far as Custer.... Here's what you would have known if you'd done the research.."

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526701

Commentary: Mr. Speer knows that his Jerrol Custer claims were not truthful, but instead of saving face by simply saying he had misremembered or was mistaken, he does summersaults attempting to demean me. "Why waste my time?" Yet Mr. Speer has no hesitation to waste our valuable time spent trying to sort out his lies, and the question of why he would tell those lies. 

10:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: I responded to Mr. Speer's 9:33 a.m cut and paste post as follows:

"This is unresponsive and immaterial to the misrepresentations I have called you out on. Pasting blather from your website just will not do.

You claimed I don't know what I'm talking about, and I dared you to "prove it," but your cut and paste job falls far short of achieving that. Not even close.

The following are the Custer misrepresentations I have called you out on and is what you should be responding to rather than a pathetic cut and paste job that misses the mark entirely:"

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526702

10:09 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to my 10:00 a.m. post as follows:

"Stalker."

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526703

Commentary: As Sandy Larsen would later write, stalking is a serious forum infraction; it is also a crime. By accusing me of being a "stalker" for simply calling him out on his lies, Mr. Speer trivialized the actual crime of stalking, and revealed to us what he is made of in terms of his seriousness as a researcher, and in terms of his honesty and integrity as a human being.

10:33 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: I responded to Mr. Speer's 10:09 a.m. "stalker" allegation as follows:

"Seriously? You are really going to mount a "woke" defense like that to what I have clearly proven are material misrepresentations on your part? I would say "that is beneath you," but clearly it is not. 

Your feeble attempt to deflect from the issue at hand by resorting to name-calling is pathetic. I have presented concrete evidence of your misrepresentations, and instead of owning up to your deceit, you resort to baseless accusations. It's clear that you have no valid defense for your actions, so you resort to childish tactics in a feeble attempt to save face. But let me tell you, Mr. Speer, it's not working. Your lack of integrity is on full display for everyone to see, and no amount of name-calling will change that. It's time for you to face the truth and take responsibility for your dishonesty."

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526705

2:25 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Sandy Larsen responded to Mr. Speer's 9:33 a.m. post as follows:

"Upon witnessing all the misrepresentations Pat has tried to pass on this forum over the past couple of weeks, and his refusal to admit he is wrong when confronted with the truth, I certainly have no faith in the accuracy of anything he has written on his website. I'm sure that much of it is factual, but now I'm sure that much of it isn't."

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526719

2:40 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Sandy Larsen responded to Mr. Speer's 10:09 a.m. "stalker" allegation as follows:

"Stalking is a serious forum infraction. But it is not considered stalking when the pursuing party presents valid evidence to counter the claims of the pursued."

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526720

2:54 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to Sandy Larsen's 2:40 p.m. post as follows:

"Everything Keven has posted has been addressed on this forum over the years, and on my website. His repeating it over and over again serves no purpose beyond harassment. Even if am wrong, his repeating his nonsense over and over again would be like my asking you over and over again about those pesky rings of Saturn...that you claim you once saw with your naked eyes."

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526721

Commentary: It's been six hours since I first confronted Mr. Speer about his Jerrol Custer misrepresentations. Far more than enough time for him to consult the Jerrol Custer deposition if he had any doubts about his memory. But instead he doubles down even harder, and maligns me to other members of the forum. Not only that, but he compounds his previous lies by telling new ones in his attempt to escape his dilemma.

3:01 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to Sandy Larsen's 2:25 p.m. post -- though quoted his own 9:33 a.m. post to Keven Hofeling -- as follows:

"It's become clear to me that whenever I counter anything written by our friend from Utah, he immediately tries to bury it with an extremely long post filled with lots of images. In this case, his spasm has fooled Sandy into thinking that I have been misrepresenting Custer's statements. So here they are again, Sandy. Maybe read them this time."

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526722

Commentary: If there had been any chance at all that Mr. Speer had merely been mistaken rather than deliberately lying, by insinuating that I have "fooled" Sandy Larsen into believing he had misrepresented Jerrol Custer's deposition testimony -- with no less than highlighted pages of the deposition itself -- he invoked a bridge too far.

5:19 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Sandy Larsen responded to Mr. Speer's 2:54 p.m. post as follows:

  On 1/23/2024 at 2:54 PM, Pat Speer said: Everything Keven has posted has been addressed on this forum over the years...

"I haven't seen most of what Keven has posted till now. And it's certainly new to the newbies."

  On 1/23/2024 at 2:54 PM, Pat Speer said: His repeating it over and over again serves no purpose beyond harassment.

"I've noticed that he repeats what he's posted when you don't respond to it (or even acknowledge it)."

  On 1/23/2024 at 2:54 PM, Pat Speer said: Even if am wrong, his repeating his nonsense ...

"It is not nonsense. It is factual."

  On 1/23/2024 at 2:54 PM, Pat Speer said: Even if am wrong, his repeating his nonsense over and over again would be like my asking you over and over again about those pesky rings of Saturn...that you claim you once saw with your naked eyes. 

"There's a big difference. In my case, I stated what I saw. In your case, you stated what one of the witnesses said. When in fact the witness did not say it."

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526731

6:49 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Sandy Larsen responded to Mr. Speer's 3:01 p.m. post as follows:

"The whole exchange is on the forum, and I saw it with my own eyes.

You made this claim:

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.

Kevin responded with a video of Custer stating that the back of the head was missing. He further responded with Custer's ARRB testimony, where he said that he DID place the back of the head on the x-ray cassette in order to take the A-P x-ray. Kevin provided the parts of his ARRB deposition where he said there was no brain when he took the x-ray, but that he nevertheless placed a sheet on the x-ray cassette to protect it from body fluids. (No mention of brain matter.)"

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526739

7:48 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to Sandy Larsen's 6:49 p.m. text as follows:

"Holy moly! Let's get this straight!

Yes, I may have overstated what Custer said about the cassette. He may or may not have said he wouldn't put the brain down on the cassette. I don't have all the interviews with him handy, so I can't say for sure. But that's immaterial. Are you really unable to see that?

Custer specified in his ARRB testimony that the back of the head was NOT blown out. 

He created a drawing for them showing that it was NOT blown out. 

And he said he took the x-rays which you and I agree do NOT depict a blow out wound on the back of the head. 

And yet, Keven is telling both of us--actually everyone who reads this website--that Custer was lying when he said the back of the head was NOT blown out, and that, furthermore, the x-rays taken by him DO show the back of the head to be missing...only neither Custer nor the rest of us can see it. 

Now I know that sounds like nonsense...and it is...

But it's not my nonsense. Sprinkled amidst his attacks on me, Keven has indicated that he is a devotee of David Mantik's. Well, Mantik says the far back of the head on the x-rays show missing bone that can only be detected by one using his special device, and that the numerous doctors and x-ray techs, including Custer, who dispute this, are just wrong, seeing as they never used his special device. (IOW, junk science in a nut-shell.)

And Custer is of special interest to Mantik because Mantik once showed him a cropped and computer-enhanced x-ray published by the HSCA, and Custer disavowed this x-ray. Ooh...Exciting... Years later, after being shown the originals by the ARRB, however, Custer said he recognized these x-rays as x-rays he'd taken, and vouched for their authenticity. Well, that must have stung Mantik a bit. Perhaps more than a bit. Because Mantik continued (and maybe even continues) telling his audience that Custer had disavowed the x-rays, without telling them that Oh yeah Custer embraced the x-rays as x-rays he'd taken once shown the originals."

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526744

Commentary: For the first time, Mr. Speer attempts to escape his dilemma by claiming he may not have recalled correctly, but then goes on to filibuster on a topic he knows full well had nothing to do with his misrepresentations or the manner in which I confronted him about those misrepresentations. By doing so Mr. Speer is misrepresenting the exchange to Sandy Larsen, thereby adding new lies upon old lies.

9:20 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Sandy Larsen responded to Mr. Speer's 7:48 p.m. post as follows:

"While it is the case that Keven presented a video of Custer saying (in 1988 for KRON TV) that the back of the head was gone, I see now that Keven didn't challenge you on that. My bad.

But he is right on the parts of what you said that he did challenge. Since you say those points are immaterial, why didn't you just admit that you misspoke or incorrectly remembered?"

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526753

Commentary: As I write this it is 8:00 a.m. on Thursday morning, January 25, 2024, nearly 36 hours since Sandy Larsen asked Mr. Speer why he didn't just admit that he had misspoken or incorrectly responded, and Mr. Speer has still not responded. 

 

Edited January 31 by Keven Hofeling

[Denny Zartman]

@Keven Hofeling I'm sorry. I think you're not going to get anything from @Pat Speer . His mind is made up, and no amount of evidence will change it.

I think you, @Sandy Larsen @Michael Griffith and others have already won this argument several times over. You in particular have done a tremendous job of presenting your arguments and as far as I'm concerned you have made an overwhelmingly convincing case. In my opinion Pat is incorrect and he should admit it.

Moderators, it might be nice if you all could consider, with your kind permission, that some of us could possibly be allowed to put @Pat Speer on ignore. May I ask that it at least be considered? If it can't be granted, I understand. While I am glad that there are forum members here expending considerable & commendable effort to fact-check him, and I appreciate the amount of hard facts they bring into these threads to correct his disinformation, I think some of us being permitted to ignore Pat might offer some help in this situation, since any other resolution seems unlikely at this point.

I'd like to say I'm not making this request lightly or casually.

Thanks very much for your attention.

[Jonathan Cohen]

37 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Moderators, it might be nice if you all could consider, with your kind permission, that some of us could possibly be allowed to put @Pat Speer on ignore. May I ask that it at least be considered? If it can't be granted, I understand. While I am glad that there are forum members here expending considerable & commendable effort to fact-check him, and I appreciate the amount of hard facts they bring into these threads to correct his disinformation, I think some of us being permitted to ignore Pat might offer some help in this situation, since any other resolution seems unlikely at this point.

I'd like to say I'm not making this request lightly or casually.

Thanks very much for your attention.

Do you actually believe you need "permission" from the "moderators" to ignore a forum member? Are you not aware that you can accomplish this yourself in a matter of seconds?

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Do you actually believe you need "permission" from the "moderators" to ignore a forum member? Are you not aware that you can accomplish this yourself in a matter of seconds?

 

Pat Speer is a (retired) moderator. Moderators cannot be put on Ignore.

 

[Chris Bristow]

I am not surprised that Keven has been so aggressive in his criticism of Pat Speer's opinions on the Parkland issue. Considering the comments of others who are well versed in the Parkland testimonies, I think I am not the only one who sees many of his explanations as an  extreme form of gaslighting.