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

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

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. 

Let's be clear. Do you mean by "gaslighting" that I'm trying to get people to moderate their belief in a conspiracy, so that they can then be pushed into the next box and be a lone-nutter? Is that what's provoking all this vitriol?

Because it's just nonsense. I have been writing and lecturing about the Kennedy assassination for 20 years now. And I call it like I see it. I think (and I believe I've proved) that the single-bullet theory was a hoax, and that an honest assessment of the facts around the shooting should lead one (and all) to believe Oswald was not a shooter, and that more than one person was involved. I think (and I believe I've proved) that a cover-up of this fact was performed by the government, for various reasons, mostly because LBJ wanted it that way. And I think (and I believe I've proved) that the HSCA investigation was a fluster-cluck in which people with divergent agendas submitted pieces to a puzzle that did not fit together. 

I think the case--as to who was responsible--remains unsolved. But the case--as to whether little old Oswald did it all by himself--is clear: he did not. And I think my research has demonstrated this...many times over. 

I've written the equivalent of a book, and have made presentations...demonstrating why I feel certain the single-bullet theory is a hoax.

I've written the equivalent of a book, and have made presentations...demonstrating why I feel certain JFK's head wounds are incompatible with the single-assassin theory. 

I've written the equivalent of a book, and have made presentations...demonstrating why I feel certain Oswald wasn't the assassin.

So why have I had to put up with so much crud...from my fellow CT's?

It goes back 15 years or so. I sided with Tink Thompson against Fetzer on the Zapruder film, and this led Fetzer to start rumors I was secretly working with the CIA, or some such thing. These attacks continued, moreover, after I argued against Fetzer's batpoop theory Oswald was on the steps and not Lovelady, and that a secret CIA lab had changed the Altgens photo within minutes of the shooting, etc, and implanted Lovelady's face on Oswald's body. Now, Fetzer eventually left the forum, but he continued embracing every wild theory to come his way, so much so that he lost credibility with almost everyone.

But his presence still lingers over this forum, and the research community in general. Instead of combing through textbooks, the reports and documents available on the Mary Ferrell site, and oral histories, etc, and adding to the facts we can draw upon, much of the "community" is obsessed with recycling arguments from books they'd read decades ago arguing that the evidence is fake. 

The Zapruder film shows a reaction by JFK that is inconsistent with the single assassin scenario...but that's not enough. It doesn't show what people want it to show--so they search for reasons to believe it is fake. 

The statements of witnesses viewing Oswald in the moments before and after the shooting suggest his innocence...but that's not enough. They didn't say what people wish they had said--so they search for reasons to believe they were lying. 

The autopsy photos, x-rays and medical evidence in general are absolutely positively at odds with the single-assassin solution. The back wound was not connected to the throat wound. The throat wound was out of alignment with the back wound. The head wounds suggested there were two head wounds, not one. And Connally's wounds suggested he'd been struck by a bullet traveling at a much lower velocity than proposed by the Commission. But they don't show evidence for what people want them to show--that there were shots from the front--so they argue endlessly and often illogically that the medical evidence--which absolutely positively proves conspiracy-- must be fake. 

It's a circular firing squad, all this talk of this being fake or that being fake. Why not discuss what it shows? 

A few years back I finally gained access to a book most had never heard of--a book on the wound ballistics of the assassination rifle written within a few years of its development. This book had images of a cadaver shot in the head from a similar distance as JFK, on a similar trajectory. And yet the wounds were nowhere near as large as Kennedy's, like not even 1/10 as large. And I showed this to some of the most prominent researchers on the case, and they got excited and asked me to send them the images  I'd acquired. And I did so. And I assumed they'd incorporate these in their subsequent presentations. But they did not. Now, to be clear, these images completely destroy the testimony and statements of the WC and HSCA's wound ballistics experts--that the damage to JFK's skull was consistent with a Carcano bullet's making a small entrance on the back of his head, and exiting from the top of his head. So why would no one in a position to bring this forth on the 60th--those interviewed by the media--those healthy enough to appear at presentations--show anyone this image? 

It's not me who's holding us back...

 

 

Edited January 27 by Pat Speer

[Keven Hofeling]

On 1/27/2024 at 2:02 PM, Pat Speer said:

Let's be clear. Do you mean by "gaslighting" that I'm trying to get people to moderate their belief in a conspiracy, so that they can then be pushed into the next box and be a lone-nutter? Is that what's provoking all this vitriol?

Because it's just nonsense. I have been writing and lecturing about the Kennedy assassination for 20 years now. And I call it like I see it. I think (and I believe I've proved) that the single-bullet theory was a hoax, and that an honest assessment of the facts around the shooting should lead one (and all) to believe Oswald was not a shooter, and that more than one person was involved. I think (and I believe I've proved) that a cover-up of this fact was performed by the government, for various reasons, mostly because LBJ wanted it that way. And I think (and I believe I've proved) that the HSCA investigation was a fluster-cluck in which people with divergent agendas submitted pieces to a puzzle that did not fit together. 

I think the case--as to who was responsible--remains unsolved. But the case--as to whether little old Oswald did it all by himself--is clear: he did not. And I think my research has demonstrated this...many times over. 

I've written the equivalent of a book, and have made presentations...demonstrating why I feel certain the single-bullet theory is a hoax.

I've written the equivalent of a book, and have made presentations...demonstrating why I feel certain JFK's head wounds are incompatible with the single-assassin theory. 

I've written the equivalent of a book, and have made presentations...demonstrating why I feel certain Oswald wasn't the assassin.

So why have I had to put up with so much crud...from my fellow CT's?

It goes back 15 years or so. I sided with Tink Thompson against Fetzer on the Zapruder film, and this led Fetzer to start rumors I was secretly working with the CIA, or some such thing. These attacks continued, moreover, after I argued against Fetzer's batpoop theory Oswald was on the steps and not Lovelady, and that a secret CIA lab had changed the Altgens photo within minutes of the shooting, etc, and implanted Lovelady's face on Oswald's body. Now, Fetzer eventually left the forum, but he continued embracing every wild theory to come his way, so much so that he lost credibility with almost everyone.

But his presence still lingers over this forum, and the research community in general. Instead of combing through textbooks, the reports and documents available on the Mary Ferrell site, and oral histories, etc, and adding to the facts we can draw upon, much of the "community" is obsessed with recycling arguments from books they'd read decades ago arguing that the evidence is fake. 

The Zapruder film shows a reaction by JFK that is inconsistent with the single assassin scenario...but that's not enough. It doesn't show what people want it to show--so they search for reasons to believe it is fake. 

The statements of witnesses viewing Oswald in the moments before and after the shooting suggest his innocence...but that's not enough. They didn't say what people wish they had said--so they search for reasons to believe they were lying. 

The autopsy photos, x-rays and medical evidence in general are absolutely positively at odds with the single-assassin solution. The back wound was not connected to the throat wound. The throat wound was out of alignment with the back wound. The head wounds suggested there were two head wounds, not one. And Connally's wounds suggested he'd been struck by a bullet traveling at a much lower velocity than proposed by the Commission. But they don't show evidence for what people want them to show--that there were shots from the front--so they argue endlessly and often illogically that the medical evidence--which absolutely positively proves conspiracy-- must be fake. 

It's a circular firing squad, all this talk of this being fake or that being fake. Why not discuss what it shows? 

A few years back I finally gained access to a book most had never heard of--a book on the wound ballistics of the assassination rifle written within a few years of its development. This book had images of a cadaver shot in the head from a similar distance as JFK, on a similar trajectory. And yet the wounds were nowhere near as large as Kennedy's, like not even 1/10 as large. And I showed this to some of the most prominent researchers on the case, and they got excited and asked me to send them the images  I'd acquired. And I did so. And I assumed they'd incorporate these in their subsequent presentations. But they did not. Now, to be clear, these images completely destroy the testimony and statements of the WC and HSCA's wound ballistics experts--that the damage to JFK's skull was consistent with a Carcano bullet's making a small entrance on the back of his head, and exiting from the top of his head. So why would no one in a position to bring this forth on the 60th--those interviewed by the media--those healthy enough to appear at presentations--show anyone this image? 

It's not me who's holding us back...

 

 

Since @Chris Bristow's post -- to which Mr. Speer responded with the above -- referred to my recent experience with Mr. Speer concerning his fabrication of Jerrol Custer information related to Custer's ARRB deposition, which Chris characterized as "gaslighting;" and as Speer responded completely off topic in a manner which in itself satisfies the classic definition of "gaslighting," and since the creation of this thread itself was inspired by said "gaslighting" for calling Speer out on his Jerrol Custer fabrications, I wish to merely point out that the following indeed meets the classic definition of "GASLIGHTING:"

Early on 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. 

1/27/2024 -- Commentary: And 5 days later Mr. Speer has still done nothing to retract, amend or otherwise apologize for accusing me of being a stalker in response to me calling him out on his Jerrol Custer fabrications.

Edited January 31 by Keven Hofeling

[Chris Bristow]

On 1/27/2024 at 1:02 PM, Pat Speer said:

Let's be clear. Do you mean by "gaslighting" that I'm trying to get people to moderate their belief in a conspiracy, so that they can then be pushed into the next box and be a lone-nutter? Is that what's provoking all this vitriol?

Because it's just nonsense. I have been writing and lecturing about the Kennedy assassination for 20 years now. And I call it like I see it. I think (and I believe I've proved) that the single-bullet theory was a hoax, and that an honest assessment of the facts around the shooting should lead one (and all) to believe Oswald was not a shooter, and that more than one person was involved. I think (and I believe I've proved) that a cover-up of this fact was performed by the government, for various reasons, mostly because LBJ wanted it that way. And I think (and I believe I've proved) that the HSCA investigation was a fluster-cluck in which people with divergent agendas submitted pieces to a puzzle that did not fit together. 

I think the case--as to who was responsible--remains unsolved. But the case--as to whether little old Oswald did it all by himself--is clear: he did not. And I think my research has demonstrated this...many times over. 

I've written the equivalent of a book, and have made presentations...demonstrating why I feel certain the single-bullet theory is a hoax.

I've written the equivalent of a book, and have made presentations...demonstrating why I feel certain JFK's head wounds are incompatible with the single-assassin theory. 

I've written the equivalent of a book, and have made presentations...demonstrating why I feel certain Oswald wasn't the assassin.

So why have I had to put up with so much crud...from my fellow CT's?

It goes back 15 years or so. I sided with Tink Thompson against Fetzer on the Zapruder film, and this led Fetzer to start rumors I was secretly working with the CIA, or some such thing. These attacks continued, moreover, after I argued against Fetzer's batpoop theory Oswald was on the steps and not Lovelady, and that a secret CIA lab had changed the Altgens photo within minutes of the shooting, etc, and implanted Lovelady's face on Oswald's body. Now, Fetzer eventually left the forum, but he continued embracing every wild theory to come his way, so much so that he lost credibility with almost everyone.

But his presence still lingers over this forum, and the research community in general. Instead of combing through textbooks, the reports and documents available on the Mary Ferrell site, and oral histories, etc, and adding to the facts we can draw upon, much of the "community" is obsessed with recycling arguments from books they'd read decades ago arguing that the evidence is fake. 

The Zapruder film shows a reaction by JFK that is inconsistent with the single assassin scenario...but that's not enough. It doesn't show what people want it to show--so they search for reasons to believe it is fake. 

The statements of witnesses viewing Oswald in the moments before and after the shooting suggest his innocence...but that's not enough. They didn't say what people wish they had said--so they search for reasons to believe they were lying. 

The autopsy photos, x-rays and medical evidence in general are absolutely positively at odds with the single-assassin solution. The back wound was not connected to the throat wound. The throat wound was out of alignment with the back wound. The head wounds suggested there were two head wounds, not one. And Connally's wounds suggested he'd been struck by a bullet traveling at a much lower velocity than proposed by the Commission. But they don't show evidence for what people want them to show--that there were shots from the front--so they argue endlessly and often illogically that the medical evidence--which absolutely positively proves conspiracy-- must be fake. 

It's a circular firing squad, all this talk of this being fake or that being fake. Why not discuss what it shows? 

A few years back I finally gained access to a book most had never heard of--a book on the wound ballistics of the assassination rifle written within a few years of its development. This book had images of a cadaver shot in the head from a similar distance as JFK, on a similar trajectory. And yet the wounds were nowhere near as large as Kennedy's, like not even 1/10 as large. And I showed this to some of the most prominent researchers on the case, and they got excited and asked me to send them the images  I'd acquired. And I did so. And I assumed they'd incorporate these in their subsequent presentations. But they did not. Now, to be clear, these images completely destroy the testimony and statements of the WC and HSCA's wound ballistics experts--that the damage to JFK's skull was consistent with a Carcano bullet's making a small entrance on the back of his head, and exiting from the top of his head. So why would no one in a position to bring this forth on the 60th--those interviewed by the media--those healthy enough to appear at presentations--show anyone this image? 

It's not me who's holding us back...

 

 

"Let's be clear. Do you mean by "gaslighting" that I'm trying to get people to moderate their belief in a conspiracy, so that they can then be pushed into the next box and be a lone-nutter? Is that what's provoking all this vitriol?"
 I am not interested is guessing your motivation for what looks to be gaslighting in the Parkland issue.  I think a mountain of criticism may have suddenly fallen on you because you have created a mountain of mis information regarding Parkland. 
 

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

"Let's be clear. Do you mean by "gaslighting" that I'm trying to get people to moderate their belief in a conspiracy, so that they can then be pushed into the next box and be a lone-nutter? Is that what's provoking all this vitriol?"
 I am not interested is guessing your motivation for what looks to be gaslighting in the Parkland issue.  I think a mountain of criticism may have suddenly fallen on you because you have created a mountain of mis information regarding Parkland. 
 

You can disagree with my conclusions. Fine. But I have not created a mountain of misinformation. I have simply presented information and analysis that challenges the pabulum fed the research community by unreliable sources. And that has pissed people off for the past 15 years or so. 

For example, it cannot be reasonably disputed that the bulk of the witnesses who've pointed to a location on the back of the head have pointed out a location above their ears, while some prominent writers have used this to suggest the wound was at a location inches lower. How does my  pointing this out...make me the bad guy? If we really believe these witnesses, shouldn't we be claiming the wound was above the ears? 

And for another example. Dr. Robert McClelland originally described but one wound, a wound of the left temple. This report was subsequently published in a medical journal saying it was on the right side of the head. Months later, after learning what was claimed by others in there reports, he gave a detailed description to the Warren Commission, in which he placed it on the far back of the head. He later explained that he wrote left temple because he, alone among his peers, left Trauma Room One under the impression there were two head wounds, with an entrance wound on the left temple that he admits he never saw. IOW, his story evolved and people accept the last one because it fits their chosen scenario. 

But what about Dr. Carrico, or Perry, or Baxter, or Jenkins, or Jones? They described a wound on the back of the head but later said they actually never inspected the back of the head and believed they were or at least could have been mistaken, as the top and back of the head was essentially blood and brain-soaked hair. Well, people choose to dis-believe them and even hate them because it fits their chosen scenario. And continue to claim them as "back of the head" witnesses. 

The lack of consistency in what constitutes the "back of the head" and what constitutes a credible "back of the head" witness, is alarming, IMO. 

Edited January 31 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

25 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You can disagree with my conclusions. Fine. But I have not created a mountain of misinformation. I have simply presented information and analysis that challenges the pabulum fed the research community by unreliable sources. And that has pissed people off for the past 15 years or so. 

For example, it cannot be reasonably disputed that the bulk of the witnesses who've pointed to a location on the back of the head have pointed out a location above their ears, while some prominent writers have used this to suggest the wound was at a location inches lower. How does my  pointing this out...make me the bad guy? If we really believe these witnesses, shouldn't we be claiming the wound was above the ears? 

And for another example. Dr. Robert McClelland originally described but one wound, a wound of the left temple. This report was subsequently published in a medical journal saying it was on the right side of the head. Months later, after learning what was claimed by others in there reports, he gave a detailed description to the Warren Commission, in which he placed it on the far back of the head. He later explained that he wrote left temple because he, alone among his peers, left Trauma Room One under the impression there were two head wounds, with an entrance wound on the left temple that he admits he never saw. IOW, his story evolved and people accept the last one because it fits their chosen scenario. 

But what about Dr. Carrico, or Perry, or Baxter, or Jenkins, or Jones? They described a wound on the back of the head but later said they actually never inspected the back of the head and believed they were or at least could have been mistaken, as the top and back of the head was essentially blood and brain-soaked hair. Well, people choose to dis-believe them and even hate them because it fits their chosen scenario. And continue to claim them as "back of the head" witnesses. 

The lack of consistency in what constitutes the "back of the head" and what constitutes a credible "back of the head" witness, is alarming, IMO. 

 

Nothing but misinformation, deception, and cherry picking.

It's pissing people off, not because it's not what they believe, but because it's dishonest.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

39 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You can disagree with my conclusions. Fine. But I have not created a mountain of misinformation. I have simply presented information and analysis that challenges the pabulum fed the research community by unreliable sources. And that has pissed people off for the past 15 years or so. 

For example, it cannot be reasonably disputed that the bulk of the witnesses who've pointed to a location on the back of the head have pointed out a location above their ears, while some prominent writers have used this to suggest the wound was at a location inches lower. How does my  pointing this out...make me the bad guy? If we really believe these witnesses, shouldn't we be claiming the wound was above the ears? 

And for another example. Dr. Robert McClelland originally described but one wound, a wound of the left temple. Later, after becoming aware that the others had placed the wound on the right rear, his report was published in a medical journal saying it was on the right side of the head. He then gave a detailed description to the Warren Commission, in which he placed it on the far back of the head. He later explained that he wrote left temple because he, alone among his peers, left Trauma Room One under the impression there were two head wounds, with an entrance wound on the left temple that he admits he never saw. IOW, his story evolved and people accept the last one because it fits their chosen scenario. 

But what about Dr. Carrico, or Perry, or Baxter, or Jenkins, or Jones? They described a wound on the back of the head but later said they actually never inspected the back of the head and believed they were or at least could have been mistaken, as the top and back of the head was essentially blood and brain-soaked hair. Well, people choose to dis-believe them and even hate them because it fits their chosen scenario. 

The lack of consistency in what constitutes the "back of the head" and what constitutes a credible "back of the head" witness, is alarming, IMO. 

Unbelievable...

What we are seeing here is Mr. Speer responding to being called out for disseminating disinformation by disseminating more disinformation.

Speer has been schooled on his malevolent assaults on the reputation of Dr. Robert McClelland by myself and many others over the span of a decade, and yet he just disseminates the same libelous and unconscionable attacks as if he just launched those attacks yesterday.

The following is from me and Sandy Larsen's recent attempt to bring to Speer's attention a few basic well-known facts about his libelous claims about Dr. McClelland:

___________

About ten years ago, Dr. Gary Aguilar schooled Mr. Speer on the circumstances that led to Dr. Robert McClelland mistakenly reporting that President Kennedy had died as the result of a gunshot wound "of"  the left temple, and Sandy Larsen just a week or so ago more succinctly and very effectively schooled him again by presenting the following in a post as exhibits:

___________

Exhibit 2

It was getting late in the evening, Dallas time, but before I ended the interview. I reminded Dr. McClelland of the fact that in his Parkland Hospital admission note at 4:45 p.m. on the day of the assassination, he had written that the president died "from a gunshot wound of the left temple." "Yes," he said, "that was a mistake. I never saw any wound to the president's left temple. Dr. Jenkins had told me there was a wound there, though he later denied telling me this.

(Vincent Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History." p. 406)

Exhibit 3

"I'll tell you how that happened," Jenkins explained, "When Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, 'Where are his wounds?' And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my right hand, and was trying to take the President's temporal pulse, and I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left temple as the wound.

(Gerald Posner, "Case Closed." p. 313)

___________

Sandy has recently written the following summary of the circumstances that led to Dr. McClelland's "left temple" mistake, and the aftermath which has resulted in much confusion:

___________

When Dr. McClelland arrived at the operating room, Dr. Marion Jenkins and several other doctors were already attending to President Kennedy. Dr. McClelland asked Dr. Jenkins where Kennedy's wounds were. Jenkins pointed to what he thought was a small entrance wound on the left temple.

Later, McClelland got a good view of the gaping wound on the back of Kennedy's head. (According to his testimony before the Warren Commission.)

So McClelland thought there were two wounds.

Some time later, Dr. Jenkins changed his mind about there being a small wound on the left temple, and he denied ever thinking so to Gerald Posner. And in fact, he blamed McClelland for ever thinking there was a wound there. Jenkins told Posner that he had been busy operating a breathing bag with his right hand and checking for a pulse on Kennedy's left temple, with a finger on his other hand. According to Jenkins, McClelland mistakenly thought that he was pointing to a small wound on the left temple.

McClelland never understood why Jenkins denied showing him where the left-temple wound was. Had he (or if he) ever read Case Closed, he would have seen why. He would have seen that Jenkins was a bald-face l.i.a.r.

___________

Mr. Speer raises all kinds of issues about Dr. McClelland's first day Admission Note, claiming that McClelland omitted mention of the large avulsive back of the head wound with extruded macerated cerebellar tissue, that McClelland's phrasing in the Note that President Kennedy died "from a gunshot wound [OF] the left temple" means that Dr. McClelland was aware of only one large wound that McClelland mistakenly placed at the left rather than the right temple (as Speer essentially alleges about all of the back-of-the-head wound witnesses), and that McClelland's lack of specificity about the back-of-the-head wound constituted medical malpractice, and ultimately means that McClelland didn't see the large avulsive back-of-the-head wound at all.

In post after post Speer rails on about how if we all read medical journals like he claims he does, that we would know that the use of the word "of" instead of "to" the left temple automatically means that McClelland was referring to one wound only. What Mr. Speer either doesn't know or won't tell you is that during the time period that McClelland attended medical school, it was very common in the medical profession to describe bullet wounds by use of the word "of," as in a bullet wound "of" the brain. See a 1942 article via the following link for an example of the use of the word "of" in the medical phraseology of the era: 'GUNSHOT WOUNDS OF THE BRAINREPORT OF TWO UNUSUAL COMPLICATIONS; BIFRONTAL PNEUMOCEPHALUS AND LOOSE BULLET IN THE LATERAL VENTRICLE':   https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/545730

Contrary to Speer's claim, Dr. McClelland's first day Admittance Note (See below) clearly notes that there were two wounds, "a massive gunshot wound of the head," AND "a gunshot wound of the left temple." We know this because none of the doctors who filed Admittance Notes along with Dr. McClelland's reported frontal wounds of the left or the right temple, much less a large frontal wound. Instead, their Admittance Notes contain terms like "back of the head,""occipital," "posterior," and "cerebellum" to describe the large head wound. Thus, McClelland's reference to a "massive" gunshot wound to the head necessarily denotes the large back-of-the-head wound reported by the other doctors, and the none of them reported the left temple wound that McClelland mistakenly reported (See  COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392: APPENDIX VIII - MEDICAL REPORTS FROM DOCTORS AT PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DALLAS, TEXAS: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm

As for Speer's allegation that McClelland's lack of specificity about the back-of-the-head wound constituted medical malpractice, inspection of the Admittance Notes of the other doctors reveals that they too, in varying ways, were brief and abbreviated. These Parkland doctors were simply reporting the brief resuscitation efforts of the trauma team, and the death of the President. Speer takes the matter out of context by expecting that McClelland should have written an autopsy report, or exercised the degree of specificity that would be expected for a patient about to go into surgery or receive further treatment. This point is made abundantly clear by the much greater specificity of the reports concerning Governor Connelly which are also included in Commission Exhibit No. 392. Mr. Speer's allegations that McClelland's admittance Note constitutes medical malpractice are arguably libelous, and I am forced to wonder whether he waited until after McClelland's death to make them. The honorable thing for Mr. Speer to do would be to scrub his social media of these allegations and to immediately publicly apologize to Dr. McClelland's family. We shall see...

And utterly ridiculous is the notion that Dr. McClelland didn't see the wounds that day. With all of the accounts by many other witnesses in half a dozen investigations, McClelland's whereabouts and actions during the attempt to resuscitate President Kennedy that day in Trauma Room One are probably the most well documented in the history of medicine. Mr. Speer insults our intelligence by suggesting otherwise. 

___________

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland

Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy

At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone.

COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392: APPENDIX VIII - MEDICAL REPORTS FROM DOCTORS AT PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DALLAS, TEXAS: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm

 

LINKS TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT: 

PAGE 1: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0019a.htm

PAGE 2: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0019b.htm

___________

Quote

3. When the initial reports of the Parkland staff were published in a Texas medical journal, but a few weeks after that, McClelland's report was slightly revised. The time of JFK's death was revised to match the official story, and McClelland's description of the wound had been changed from left temple to right side of the head. I believe McClelland was behind these changes. He most certainly never denounced the revisions. 

Such updates and revisions are common in the learned professions, particularly in matters involving such things as time of death, and given Acting White House Press Secretary Malcolm Perry's public announcement that President Kennedy had died as the result of a bullet that "entered the right temple," it could have been a Journal editor who changed it from the left temple to the right temple. You are grasping at straws.

Quote

"5. After reading his testimony, Josiah Thompson hired an artist to make a sketch demonstrating the wounds as described by McClelland. McClelland was later shown this drawing by the Boston Globe, and the ARRB. Both times he said the drawing was inaccurate, and presented a wound too low on the back of the head. Even so, due in no small part to so many ill-informed people assuming he'd made the drawing, or had supervised the drawing, it came to be called the McClelland drawing."

Dr. McLelland probably grew tired of having to explain the origins of the drawing from Thompson's book and decided just to ratify it instead, but I disagree that this has sinister implications of the variety Mr. Speer is trying to sell us. Incidentally, there is an actual McClelland drawing that he sketched in TMWKK, which is as follows:

I have recently enhanced Dr. McClelland's drawing using standard editing software (which you will see below I am not at all masterful at using), and the results were surprising to me, as it does differ significantly from the 'Six Seconds in Dallas' sketch. In my view, the utility of that sketch has always been as an APROXIMATION of the location of the BOH wounds, and not so much as to its specific dimensions, given the variation between the various witness sketches, human memory being what it is and is not. Because we have been deprived of the genuine BOH autopsy photographs showing the actual large avulsive wound (which John Stringer in 1972 assured David Lifton he did indeed take), we are relegated to having to accept a general approximation of the wound, which just has to meet certain criteria, such as being behind JFK's right ear, and being low enough to account for the extruding macerated cerebellum, which to McClelland's credit the drawing from the Thompson book does meet.

The BOH sketch Dr. McClelland made by his own hand in TMWKK is as follows:

 

Quote

7. And then. McClelland saw the Zapruder film on TV. By his own admission, this, and not the nature of the President's wounds, led him down conspiracy road. He was soon tracked down by CT writers, and became pretty much a darling among the CT crowd.

Dr. McClelland frequently gave of his valuable time and wisdom to JFK researchers, as in the following example of notes he made for researcher and author, Vince Palamara, concerning the extant Zapruder film:

What is particularly interesting is that when some researchers confronted Dr. McClelland about the Grand Canyon sized discrepancy between the drawing from the Thompson book and the depictions of the back-of-the-head wound in the extant Zapruder film, McClelland was unable to offer any explanation. Dr. Paul Peters, on the other hand, when confronted with the same question was more bold with his answer:

___________

PAUL PETERS, MD:

"...When shown enlarged Zapruder film frames depicting a right-anterior wound, Peters wrote, "The wound which you marked...I never saw and I don't think there was such a wound. I think that was simply an artifact of copying Zapruder's movie... The only wound I saw on President Kennedy's head was in the occipitoparietal area on the right side." (Personal letter to Wallace Milam 4-14-80, copy, courtesy of Wallace Milam to author Aguilar; also in Lifton, BE: 557)..."

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

___________

These reactions of McClelland and Peters highlight a much underappreciated fact about the headwound depictions in the extant Zapruder film which is that President Kennedy's forehead is shown as being completely blown away, so much so that in Z-335 and Z-337 we are seeing the First Ladies pink shoulder pad exactly where the Presidents forehead should be:

Conversely, Zapruder film authenticity apologists, like Mr. Speer, when confronted with the same discrepancy routinely respond that it is just an "optical illusion," and that JFK's forehead is tucked away behind the "blob" object being depicted as hanging down from JFK's head. But upon close inspection, it is undeniable that we are indeed seeing a huge cavernous wound in JFK's forehead, about the size of a grapefruit, in the Zapruder film frames leading up to Z-335 which none of the witnesses at Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital, and the Bethesda autopsy ever reported, as can be seen in the following selected frames which have been highlighted only to provide emphasis: 

Quote

 

8. And his already questionable memory suffered as a result. Over the next years and decades, he began claiming he'd drawn the "McClelland" drawing, or had signed off on it, or some such thing, anything but admit the truth--that Thompson had had it created without even talking to him. In the end, in fact, he started creating, and presumably selling (as eBay is littered with them) his own hand-drawn facsimiles of the famous drawing, some of which included an entrance wound on the forehead, which he admitted he did not see, and an entrance wound on the back, which he admitted he did not see.

The man gloried in attention. 

 

More than anything else, it was Mr. Speer's allegation that Dr. McClelland "presumably" sought to profit from the assassination by selling his notes and drawings of President Kennedy's large avulsive back-of-the-head wound that inspired the creation of this particular thread on the Education Forum. The allegation is both defamatory and unconscionable, and if Speer had any evidence to support it you can be assured he
would be shouting it from the rooftops. And I once again implore Mr. Speer to scrub his social media of this scandalous allegation and to immediately issue a public apology to the McClelland family. Dr. McClelland was a devoted servant of the public good, and he and his family deserve better than this...

 

 

Edited January 31 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Nothing but misinformation, deception, and cherry picking.

It's pissing people off, not because it's not what they believe, but because it's dishonest.

 

What the heck??? What misinformation? I have always acknowledged that a lot of people pointed to the backs of their head. I have never tried to conceal that. 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

What the heck??? What misinformation?

 

Misinformation like your claim that McClelland once thought there was a large wound on Kennedy's left temple. Or right temple.

It is obvious how the left-temple misunderstanding occurred, but you refuse to acknowledge it even after it is explained to you. And your insistence that "gunshot wound of the left temple" refers to the blowout wound when it is obvious it is referring to an entrance wound.