Can Speer and His Confederates Counter the Only Math that Really Counts RE: JFK's Occipital-Parietal Wound?

[Keven Hofeling]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It's not my conjecture. Jenkins said the back of the head between the ears was shattered but still intact beneath the scalp in filmed interviews with Harrison Livingstone and William Law, and then again at two different JFK Lancer conferences which I attended. At the first of these, there was a breakout session with about 30 people in attendance in which he was repeatedly grilled by Aguilar and Mantik about the back of the head, and told them repeatedly that it was shattered but intact beneath the scalp. Of course Mantik turned around and told this to Doug Horne and within days Horne had an article online in which he claimed Jenkins had told this audience that the autopsy photos are inaccurate and Horne then twisted this into Jenkins' claiming the back of the head was blown out--when he had actually said the exact opposite. Now, the next year, he made an appearance with Mantik and Chesser and I spoke to him a bit with Matt Douthitt, and I told Jenkins these guys were taking his words and twisting them into support for their belief the back of the head was blown out. And he said "What are you gonna do? People will believe what they want to believe..."

So I was as shocked as anyone when I saw Jenkins pull a flip-flop on all this but when I looked closely at his book I found my answer--he credited Mike Chesser with help on the book. 

So, yeah, from where I stand--and from what I have witnessed personally--Mantik, Horne, and Chesser are in the deception business. Now they may be deceiving themselves first and foremost, but they are not particularly interested in the truth, IMO.

Given your post, and my review of the transcript of the November 22, 2013 Lancer Confence that you appear to be referencing therein, I think that "conjecture" is not a strong enough word. "Lies" is probably the correct term, unless you are able to explain the discrepancies which follow between the excerpts from the transcript of the 2013 Lancer Conference and the representations you have made in the post to which this is a response, as well as on your website, about the statements that James Jenkins made about JFK's head wounds during his presentation at that conference:

You can find the transcript I will be referencing below at the following link:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437612

James Jenkins referenced two head wounds, as follows:

"...there was a small entry…..exit, anyway a small wound that appeared to be approximately four….right in front of the top of the right ear and slightly above it...."

"...At the conclusion of the autopsy my personal ideas of the things that I said, I was sure that the entrance wound was above the right ear and that the large wound in the back (of the head) was an exit wound.  In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr. Boswell to the gallery...."

Now this transcript was made by @Pete Mellor, as he indicates on the post via the following link, so it has nothing to do with Doug Horne and Dr. David Mantik:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437633

Not only does this indicate to me that, as I have always suspected, you have been lying about James Jenkins' testimony all along, but the evidence I have been consistently posting in response to your claims about Jenkins also indicates that you are lying.

In 1977, James Jenkins told the HSCA that the large head wound was in the back of JFK's head, and made the following sketch consistent therewith:

And in 1979, Jenkins told David Lifton that it was a large "gaping" wound in the occipital-parietal region of JFK's head:

And in 2018, James Jenkins is drawing the same small right temple wound and occipital-parietal wound that he described at the 2013 Lancer Conderence that you are lying about:

So, what I want to know, Mr. Speer, is how do you get off on impugning the credibility of Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser regarding this matter when all along it has actually been YOU who is telling the lies?

Edited April 21 by Keven Hofeling

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

On 4/20/2024 at 10:15 PM, Keven Hofeling said:

I've had several extensive, though oddly disjointed, discussions with @Keyvan Shahrdar on Facebook about the "question" of the location of JFK's large avulsive headwound.

On a number of occasions, Keyvan cited the names of Parkland doctors in support of a top of the head location for the large avulsive headwound (consistent with Zapruder film imagery), but then when I presented Dr. Gary Aguilar's chronologies of the varies testimonies of those doctors, he became unresponsive, and would not defend his previous claims about the doctors.

More recently on Facebook, Keyvan cited Bethesda Tech James Jenkins in an effort to rebut the occipital-parietal location of the large avulsive headwound (perhaps after reading some of @Pat Speer's conjecture about Jenkins), to which I responded by posting the following 2018 markings of the wounds by Jenkins on a skull model:

 

 

As well as the following, earliest drawing by Jenkins of the occipital-parietal wound, that Jenkins did for the HSCA in 1977:

 

After I posted these Jenkins renderings for Keyvan's inspection, he became unresponsive again, and refused to address the contradiction I was pointing out between his claim that Jenkins was a top of the head witness, and the drawings Jenkins had made of the occipital-parietal wound on the back of JFK's head, resorting instead to his mantra that "facts supersede narrative."

I am with you, Sandy, and would like to see Keyvan answer the questions you have posed about where Keyvan believes the large head wound was located, and about whether it is the Zapruder film head wound imagery or the right profile autopsy photographs of JFK that are fraudulent (given that they contradict each other). For that matter, I'd also like to see Pat Speer answer the same questions, as he always seems to be reticent about identifying an exact location for the large head wound. 

However, I would like to add the following Zapruder film headwound imagery to the equation (from the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" direct copy of the extant "original" Zapruder film), so that Keyvan and Pat can fully appreciate the cantaloupe sized cavernous wound crater that is depicted as being in JFK's forehead in the film which not one single Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital or Bethesda autopsy witness ever reported or described, and which clearly contradicts the autopsy photographs:

 

 

What specifically I would like to see Keyvan and Pat explain is why in the Zapruder film in frames Z-335 and Z-337 we are see Jackie Kennedy's pink shoulder pad where we should be seeing President Kennedy's forehead, when the autopsy photographs demonstrate that the President's forehead is perfectly intact:

ZAPRUDER FRAME 335

 

 

ZAPRUDER FRAME 337

 

 

Now, Keyvan and Pat, how do you reconcile Z-335 and Z-337, as well as the other Zapruder film images above showing a cavernous cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead with the following right profile autopsy photographs of the fallen President which demonstrate that there was no such crater in his forehead and that the forehead was perfectly intact?

 

 

 

Keven, you have been
BRAINWASHED

and the only person to blame is yourself.

BTW - The only reason I become unresponsive to your posts is because they are way too long and filled with lies and gibberish and I just don't want to spend the time to have a discussion with a habitual agent of misinformation.

Why have you been brainwashed?  I know you are smart.  You are a lawyer after all.  Why did you let yourself get brainwashed this way?  What am I thinking, you researched all this information yourself, your probably purchased books about the JFK assassination from authors whose sole intent is to make money from you.  These authors will write anything to make a buck and you have decided of your own free will to get brainwashed with their hogwash.

All you have to do is look at the medical evidence, the Zapruder film, and the Nix film, the Marie Muchmore film, and the Mary Moorman photo.

Look at the x-rays, they were taken before JFK got cut up by the pathologists.

But you wont, because you are BRAINWASHED and all you have are these long posts full of conjecture from wayward authors.

Edited April 23 by Keyvan Shahrdar

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Given your post, and my review of the transcript of the November 22, 2013 Lancer Confence that you appear to be referencing therein, I think that "conjecture" is not a strong enough word. "Lies" is probably the correct term, unless you are able to explain the discrepancies which follow between the excerpts from the transcript of the 2013 Lancer Conference and the representations you have made in the post to which this is a response, as well as on your website, about the statements that James Jenkins made about JFK's head wounds during his presentation at that conference:

You can find the transcript I will be referencing below at the following link:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437612

James Jenkins referenced two head wounds, as follows:

"...there was a small entry…..exit, anyway a small wound that appeared to be approximately four….right in front of the top of the right ear and slightly above it...."

"...At the conclusion of the autopsy my personal ideas of the things that I said, I was sure that the entrance wound was above the right ear and that the large wound in the back (of the head) was an exit wound.  In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr. Boswell to the gallery...."

Now this transcript was made by @Pete Mellor, as he indicates on the post via the following link, so it has nothing to do with Doug Horne and Dr. David Mantik:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437633

Not only does this indicate to me that, as I have always suspected, you have been lying about James Jenkins' testimony all along, but the evidence I have been consistently posting in response to your claims about Jenkins also indicates that you are lying.

In 1977, James Jenkins told the HSCA that the large head wound was in the back of JFK's head, and made the following sketch consistent therewith:

And in 1979, Jenkins told David Lifton that it was a large "gaping" wound in the occipital-parietal region of JFK's head:

And in 2018, James Jenkins is drawing the same small right temple wound and occipital-parietal wound that he described at the 2013 Lancer Conderence that you are lying about:

So, what I want to know, Mr. Speer, is how do you get off on impugning the credibility of Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser regarding this matter when all along it has actually been YOU who is telling the lies?

What the??? As stated, Jenkins is on camera saying the back of the head was shattered beneath the scalp but not blown out of the skull. He has said a lot of things that are problematic for the official story, that's for sure. But he has claimed this part of the head was intact at the beginning of the autopsy. 

He has also claimed, since forever, that no pre-autopsy surgery was performed at Bethesda and that Horne is completely off-base. When I spoke to him, and asked if maybe Humes had done thus surgery in another room, he was adamant that there was no other room, and that nothing of the sort happened at Bethesda. I think he was open-minded about the possibility something had occurred somewhere else, before the arrival of the body at Bethesda, but Horne won't have that, as he's cherry-picked numerous pieces of evidence and put them together to create a completely phony story about Humes altering the body, and is unable to break away from his creation. 

P.S. I notice that you mention Jenkins' claim he saw a bullet wound by the ear. Well, he initially said this was a gray smear on the bone, which helped convince me I was correct about a bullet's entering at this location. Then, after being pounded for years by your heroes, he started claiming he saw a bullet hole by the ear and not just a gray smear. And then, with the release of JFK: What the Doctors Saw, these years of manipulation paid off--as Horne was now claiming this bullet hole, which was originally not a bullet hole, was actually a bullet hole high on the forehead. Which Mantik and Horne had conjured up from almost nothing...

In any event, it's nice to see you acknowledge Jenkins said this was by the ear, and that Horne's claim it was really high on the forehead is nonsense.  

Edited April 21 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Nothing you guys say match up with what you see in film, autopsy photographs and x-rays.

 

Keyvan,

What makes you think that the photos, films, and x-rays are all legitimate?

Saying that is like saying you know something is true because you read it on the internet.

 

21 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

In the same breath both of you discount the film, autopsy photographs, and x-rays as fake and then use them to try to make a point of where the fragment came from  or where the shots came from.  Come on!

 

I don't believe I've done that. But jeez Keyvan, just because one part of a photo has been altered doesn't mean that the whole thing has been altered. You need to use your best judgement in deciding what to trust.

BTW, deciding for nor no apparent reason that none of the photos, films, x-ray have been altered is not using sound judgement, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

21 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

There is nothing you can post to make me believe these narratives over the facts shown in the film, autopsy photographs, and x-rays.  There is nothing you can say that could make me question the authenticity of them.

 

I believe you, Keyvan. What you just admitted to is that you have a preconceived notion, and will consider no other possibility because you are a closed-minded ideologue.

Well, I've got news for you pal... It is easy for those of us with open minds to see that the location of the gaping wound in the Zapruder film is inconsistent with what we see in the autopsy photos. It is also easy for us to see that the location of the wound as described in the autopsy report is inconsistent with what we see in the Zapruder film. And ALL of these are inconsistent with where ~40 Parkland and Bethesda hospital medical professionals said they saw the wound.

And yet, the one thing that is consistent between the location as indicated in the photos, film, and autopsy report is that the wound was NOT on the back of the head. Which is in stark contrast to where all the medical professionals placed it.

Given that a back-of-the-head blowout wound indicates a shot from the front -- something that contradicts the lone gunman theory -- it is exceedingly obvious to those of us with open minds that the explanation for the inconsistency between the witness statements and the obviously illegitimate photos, film, and autopsy report is that the U.S. government altered the latter three as a part of their coverup designed to blame only Oswald.

Furthermore, it is obvious to those of us with open minds that the reason for the inconsistencies between the photos, film, and autopsy report is that there was insufficient time to coordinate the altering of the three pieces of evidence so that they would be more precisely consistent with each other.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

On 4/19/2024 at 5:25 PM, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Sorry Keven!  You can say what ever you want but: Narrative is Narrative, Gibberish is Gibberish, and Fact is Fact.

@Keyvan Shahrdar, on two separate threads now you have responded to the evidentiary challenges @Sandy Larsen and I have presented to you with various reiterations of the above mantra, and have offered absolutely nothing substantive in response, and it is so far appearing futile to even attempt to communicate with you because you are revealing yourself to be a one trick pony capable of nothing other than this solitary hollow mantra:

The suppressed premise underlying your mantra appears to be the proposition that the films and photographs of the assassination are authentic, pristine and inviolate, and that the abundant evidence that impeaches the authenticity thereof is mere "gibberish" and "narrative" unworthy of the least consideration, so Sandy and I have presented you with questions within the conceptual framework you have presented which you appear to be refusing to address, even though it is the photographic evidence itself we have presented you with.

So I am here going to present these challenges to you again, while reminding you that we have presented same to you within the criteria which you have -- however unwisely -- labeled as "facts" as opposed to "gibberish" and "narratives." In essence, for the sake of argument, we are attempting to engage you in a discussion, on your own terms, and in doing so have presented you with issues on your own turf which one would think you should be able to understand.

The questions Sandy presented you with were at the post linked as follows:   https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534070

And the related questions I presented you with were at the post linked as follows:   https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534128

For your convenience, those questions were essentially as follows, which challenges you with the additional question of whether you are capable of responding without resort to your dismissive "gibberish/narrative" mantra, given that these questions relate exclusively to the photographic evidence:

__________________

I am with you, Sandy, and would like to see Keyvan answer the questions you have posed about where Keyvan believes the large head wound was located, and about whether it is the Zapruder film head wound imagery or the right profile autopsy photographs of JFK that are fraudulent (given that they contradict each other).  

However, I would like to add the following Zapruder film headwound imagery to the equation (from the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" direct copy of the extant "original" Zapruder film), so that Keyvan can fully appreciate the cantaloupe sized cavernous wound crater that is depicted as being in JFK's forehead in the film which not one single Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital or Bethesda autopsy witness ever reported or described, and which clearly contradicts the autopsy photographs:

What specifically I would like to see Keyvan explain is why in the Zapruder film in frames Z-335 and Z-337 we are see Jackie Kennedy's pink shoulder pad where we should be seeing President Kennedy's forehead, when the autopsy photographs demonstrate that the President's forehead is perfectly intact:

ZAPRUDER FRAME 335

 

ZAPRUDER FRAME 337

Now, Keyvan, how do you reconcile Z-335 and Z-337, as well as the other Zapruder film images above showing a cavernous cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead with the following right profile autopsy photographs of the fallen President which demonstrate that there was no such crater in his forehead and that the forehead was perfectly intact? In other words, which photographic images are fraudulent, the autopsy photographs, or the Zapruder film images?

Edited April 28 by Keven Hofeling

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

8 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

@Keyvan Shahrdar, on two separate threads now you have responded to the evidentiary challenges @Sandy Larsen and I have presented to you with various reiterations of the above mantra, and have offered absolutely nothing substantive in response, and it is so far appearing futile to even attempt to communicate with you because you are revealing yourself to be a one trick pony capable of nothing other than this solitary hollow mantra:

The suppressed premise underlying your mantra appears to be the proposition that the films and photographs of the assassination are authentic, pristine and inviolate, and that the abundant evidence that impeaches the authenticity thereof is mere "gibberish" and "narrative" unworthy of the least consideration, so Sandy and I have presented you with questions within the conceptual framework you have presented which you appear to be refusing to address, even though it is the photographic evidence itself we have presented you with.

So I am here going to present these challenges to you again, while reminding you that we have presented same to you within the criteria which you have -- however unwisely -- labeled as "facts" as opposed to "gibberish" and "narratives." In essence, for the sake of argument, we are attempting to engage you in a discussion, on your own terms, and in doing so have presented you with issues on your own turf which one would think you should be able to understand.

The questions Sandy presented you with were at the post linked as follows:   https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534070

And the related questions I presented you with were at the post linked as follows:   https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534128

For your convenience, those questions were essentially as follows, which challenges you with the additional question of whether you are capable of responding without resort to your dismissive "gibberish/narrative" mantra, given that these questions relate exclusively to the photographic evidence:

__________________

I am with you, Sandy, and would like to see Keyvan answer the questions you have posed about where Keyvan believes the large head wound was located, and about whether it is the Zapruder film head wound imagery or the right profile autopsy photographs of JFK that are fraudulent (given that they contradict each other).  

However, I would like to add the following Zapruder film headwound imagery to the equation (from the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" direct copy of the extant "original" Zapruder film), so that Keyvan can fully appreciate the cantaloupe sized cavernous wound crater that is depicted as being in JFK's forehead in the film which not one single Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital or Bethesda autopsy witness ever reported or described, and which clearly contradicts the autopsy photographs:

What specifically I would like to see Keyvan explain is why in the Zapruder film in frames Z-335 and Z-337 we are see Jackie Kennedy's pink shoulder pad where we should be seeing President Kennedy's forehead, when the autopsy photographs demonstrate that the President's forehead is perfectly intact:

ZAPRUDER FRAME 335

 

ZAPRUDER FRAME 337

Now, Keyvan, how do you reconcile Z-335 and Z-337, as well as the other Zapruder film images above showing a cavernous cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead with the following right profile autopsy photographs of the fallen President which demonstrate that there was no such crater in his forehead and that the forehead was perfectly intact? In other words, which photographic images are fraudulent, the autopsy photographs, or the Zapruder film images?

1. Can you please quit the long posts?  Really!

What I have replied to you is substantive and factual.

Did you notice what you just did?  You have claimed that all the photographs that you posted have been compromised because they do not fit your "narrative" and now you are using the same photographs to try to prove your narrative.

You have been brainwashed  by greedy authors and researchers who just want to make money from you.  You need to go through retraining camp on your JFK research.

Do some research on the Autopsy photo 13,14 (B & W) 40,41 (Color) Figure 60.  This I see is a bad copy of the autopsy photograph. All of your photographs are bad copies that do not show detail.  Where did you get them?  The web? I have a much sharper images where you can see details that you cannot see on the photos you supplied.

Look at that photograph, to the left of the throat shot, there seems to be a red dot.  Is it an exit shot?  IDW.  To the right side of the throat wound there seems to be a incision on the top of his nipple.  In his left arm pit, there seems to be something circular at the crease of the arm pit and the left pectoral.  Those are questions that need answers.  I don't know what they are.  Why don't you spend time trying to figure them out.

His head shows signs of a tangential shot similar to what Pat showed, except it is going upward from the temporal bone  of the right ear to the top of the skull.

Stop spewing mis information in the evidence of factual autopsy photos.

[Keven Hofeling]

3 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

1. Can you please quit the long posts?  Really!

KH: I am sorry if my posts tax and overburden your intellect; they are quite simply as long or as short as they need to be to get the job done. Unlike you, I don't screw around with big fonts as an alternative to substance or consider elaborate detailed information to be "gibberish." The assassination and associated evidence is a very big, complex subject, and if you'd concerned yourself with doing the reading and thinking involved in learning the subject matter instead of being so concerned with "gibberish" and "narrative," then you might have learned something about it. Instead, the best you can do is look at the "pictures."

What I have replied to you is substantive and factual.

KH: I'll believe it when I see it, and I haven't seen it yet...

Did you notice what you just did?  You have claimed that all the photographs that you posted have been compromised because they do not fit your "narrative" and now you are using the same photographs to try to prove your narrative.

KH: You think you've made some kind of deep very profound point, don't you? To me what it says is that you "don't get it," even when I accommodate your oft stated aversion to "gibberish," and instead present you with "pictures." Rather than keeping you stumped as to the reason why your point about my use of autopsy photographs isn't as deep and profound as you seem to think it is, I'll simply let you in on what to you must seem like a secret: The point of the comparison I presented to you between the autopsy photographs and Zapruder film stills is that the alterations contradict each other, so in doing so, I've made no grand statement about the authenticity of one or the other, as you seem to think I have. Now do you get it?

You have been brainwashed  by greedy authors and researchers who just want to make money from you.  You need to go through retraining camp on your JFK research.

KH: How would you know? Your lazy aversion to "gibberish"  means that you don't read anything, as you've admitted previously about not reading my posts. This also explains why you don't know anything about the JFK assassination. You simply haven't done the work. To be completely frank, your lack of knowledge about the subject is so blatantly obvious that I have literally wondered if, instead of corresponding with the actual Keyvan Shahrder I am actually corresponding with Keyvan Shahrder's 7 or 8 year old child playing on dad's computer. The jury is still out on that one.

Do some research on the Autopsy photo 13,14 (B & W) 40,41 (Color) Figure 60.  This I see is a bad copy of the autopsy photograph. All of your photographs are bad copies that do not show detail.  Where did you get them?  The web? I have a much sharper images where you can see details that you cannot see on the photos you supplied.

KH: If you had ever done any research of your own on the autopsy photographs you would know that not a single one of them has ever been publicly released. All of the autopsy photographs you have ever seen are bootleg photos either from the Fox set or the Groden set, and as such they are all of inferior quality, and cropped differently from the extant "originals," which we know as the result of Doug Horne's writing about the originals vs. the bootlegs. I'll bet the first time you have even seen the official numbering of the extant "original" autopsy photographs has been on the copies I have presented you, as you would otherwise have had to go through so much "gibberish" to learn about them. Where dig you get your copies of the autopsy photographs, from the National Archives? LOL!

Look at that photograph, to the left of the throat shot, there seems to be a red dot.  Is it an exit shot?  IDW.  To the right side of the throat wound there seems to be a incision on the top of his nipple.  In his left arm pit, there seems to be something circular at the crease of the arm pit and the left pectoral.  Those are questions that need answers.  I don't know what they are.  Why don't you spend time trying to figure them out.

KH: There has been extensive analysis of all of the bootleg autopsy photograph anomalies by authors such as Harrison Livingstone, David Lifton, Doug Horne and others, and you would know the answers to your questions (to a reasonable degree of certainty, considering the dubious provenance and quality of the photos) were it not for that nasty aversion you have to reading "gibberish." My suggestion for you is that you get over that quick, fast and in a hurry, so that you can actually start to read some of the books that contain the answers you are looking for. As they say, the waste of a mind is a terrible thing.

His head shows signs of a tangential shot similar to what Pat showed, except it is going upward from the temporal bone  of the right ear to the top of the skull.

KH: The problem with that is that 25+ professional doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital neither viewed nor reported a wound such as you have described, not even Nurse Diana Bowron who washed the dried blood out of the President's hair and packed the large avulsive wound in the back of his head with gauze squares before the body was put in the ceremonial casket at Trauma Room One. I know that to you that is all just "gibberish," and "narrative," but in the real world, all of that evidence is what leads to the photos and films being excluded from evidence (except to prove fraud) in a court of law. It's not necessary that you like that fact or even agree with it. The law will remain the law regardless of your uneducated opinions or whether or not you consent.

Stop spewing mis information in the evidence of factual autopsy photos.

KH: Is it "misinformation" that most of the members of the Bethesda autopsy team who signed the 1966 Inventory affidavit which purported to certify the authenticity and completeness of all of the autopsy photographs have testified to having seen autopsy photographs that are no longer in the extant collection at the National Archives?

Is it "misinformation" that up to 18 autopsy photographs are missing from the extant collection at the National Archives?

Is it "misinformation" that John Stringer, the Bethesda autopsy photographer, confirmed to David Lifton that the autopsy photographs he took included back of the head photos that showed the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound? The back of the head autopsy photos in the extant collection of "originals" today depict the back of the President's head as being perfectly intact.

Is it "misinformation" that when Dr. David Mantik conducted stereographic testing of the extant "original" autopsy photographs during 9 visits to the National Archives he discovered that there is a matte insert placed over the area in the back of the head autopsy photographs where we should be seeing the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound?

 

THE FOX SET

 

[Sandy Larsen]

You're wasting your time Keven. Ideologues hear only what they want to hear and they disregard the rest.