The JFK autopsy doctors revealed a back-of-head missing fragment.

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Pat Speer wrote:

Face it, Mr. Speer: Online forums and website accumulations of trivia are not the vehicles by which "truth" is ultimately decided in our civilization.  Judges and Juries serve as our factfinders, and do so pursuant to historically vetted judicial rules and principles designed to eliminate the variety of frivolous nonsense and fallacious diatribe that you regularly practice in your endeavor to validate and protect the fraudulent photographic evidence that the government relies upon to preserve the cover-up of the coup de tat it perpetrated in 1963. Should your manipulation of the principles of  probative value and evidentiary weight ever be adjudicated by a Court of competent jurisdiction in which the scales of justice are genuinely operational, your entire project will go down in flames, and your fraudulent photographic evidence will be excluded from consideration except to prove fraud pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence -- "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."

Your denial of the fact that you constantly proclaim the confused split-second crisis generated testimony of Bill Newman and the other Dealey Plaza lay witnesses as definitive proof of your nutty top of the head wound mythology is conclusively belied by your posting behavior, including in this very thread. As previously stated, this betrays your lack of understanding of the principles of probative value and evidentiary weight under which there is simply no comparison between the testimony of the Dealey Plaza lay witnesses and the testimony and official reports of the law enforcement witnesses and the medical witnesses, and despite being constantly confronted about it by myself and others, you continue to proceed on the errant path that you are on as if you believe yourself to be participating in a fiction forum rather than conversing about the assassination of a United States President and the illegitimate downfall of a duly elected democratic government.

 

Pat Speer wrote:

You are neglecting to mention that the most prominent of those Parkland doctors -- meaning those who were senior physicians and who conducted the most extended examinations of JFK's large avulsive head wound -- qualified their validation of the autopsy photographs by saying that if there was scalp covering the large avulsive back of the head wound then, in that case, the back of the head autopsy photographs are authentic (even though it begs the obvious question of what the purpose of those particular autopsy photographs is given the absence of a visible wound, which is even more troubling when considering that John Stringer, the Bethesda autopsy photographer, told researcher David Lifton that the back of the head autopsy photographs he took were of the actual occipital-parietal head wound).

Where doubt enters the equation, in reality, is when a Judge is shown the reports of all the Parkland doctors and nurses about the large gaping back of the head wound, as well as the David Lifton interview of John Stringer, and she or he excludes the back of the head autopsy photographs from evidence -- except to prove fraud -- pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Your suggestion that there could be a "reasonable doubt" of the reports and testimony of the Parkland doctors and nurses (combined with the reports and testimony of the law enforcement witnesses and the Bethesda autopsy witnesses), and that just "numerous theorists" have attested to the existence of the occipital-parietal wound constitute yet further examples of the variety of sophistry you are so well known for on this issue.

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Your imaginary scenario has built into it your standard propaganda, consisting of easily debunked fallacies.

The concert goers who claimed Hendrix was wearing a blue shirt are the fifty or so witnesses that wrote reports and/or otherwise attested that JFK had a large avulsive wound on the right side of the back of his head.

The film showing Hendrix was wearing a white shirt is the Zapruder film in which there is a D-max black patch with sharp edges covering the occipital-parietal wound, and obviously designed to mimic shadow, about which at least three veteran Hollywood professionals have rendered their professional opinions that it is but one example of crude special effects in the film.

Your best-selling book author could be David Lifton or any number of other JFKA researchers who have written books bringing to the attention of readers the overwhelming documentary and testimonial evidence of the large occipital-parietal wound, and some of the many anomalies in the Zapruder film and autopsy photographs that are indicative of photographic forgery.

Those you have renouncing their earlier testimony about the blue shirt when questioned by journalists are supposed to represent the Parkland doctors who, when confronted with the autopsy photos by Ben Bradlee and PBS, hemmed and hawed for fear of being portrayed as crazy conspiracy theorists, which is understandable, given the mainstream media propaganda campaigns they had all seen conducted against David Lifton. And the one holdout you mention represents Doctor Robert McClelland who continued to describe the large occipital-parietal wound he had witnesses up until the day of his death. This you present in your apparent misguided belief that the recanting of some of the Parkland doctors in light of the stress of media attention and potential risks to their professional reputations invalidates their earlier contemporaneous and near contemporaneous observations about the large occipital-parietal wound, but you are wrong. All things considered, the earliest accounts of the fifty or so witnesses, most of whom were law enforcement and medical professionals, continues to be the evidence with the greatest probative value and evidentiary weight.

The witnesses your story has coming forward later and falsely inserting themselves into the concert events represent JFK witnesses such as Dr. Robert Grossman, who is not mentioned as being involved in the treatment of President Kennedy by any of the medical reports or Warren Commission testimony, and who was likely not actually involved in the events, as demonstrated by his testimony to the ARRB that he saw Jackie Kennedy wearing a "white dress" on the day of the assassination, as well as his claims of having seen a small bullet entry wound in the back of JFK's head (the single solitary Parkland Hospital witness to make such a claim). Yet, because of Grossman's claims made in support of the Bethesda autopsy proceedings, you feature him prominently on your website without any mention of the likelihood that he is not a genuine witness. You are thus attacking yourself with your own story.

The bottom line is that the reality which your silly metaphor represents is not as ridiculous as you seem to think it is, except for the parts that are applicable to you and your sophistry.

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Your use of the ad hominem, straw man, and guilt by association fallacies in relation to Jim Fetzer is noteworthy. It is demonstrative of your recognition that you have no formidable arguments to offer in your own defense, and so must resort to cheap fallacious reasoning in an attempt to inflame the prejudices of readers. Using Jim Fetzer to mount an attack on all JFK researchers who recognize the probative value and evidentiary weight of the reports and testimony that proves the existence of the occipital-parietal wound is tantamount to using George Santos as the vehicle for an attack upon all politicians. It just doesn't fly and reveals your desperation and the frivolousness of your defense.

 

Pat Speer wrote:

I can see that you are really struggling with this idea of the judicial principles of probative value and evidentiary weight. "A few Parkland witnesses" who dealt with gunshot wounds on a daily basis in a busy metropolitan hospital versus the Dealey Plaza lay witnesses who had split-second glimpses of the assassination under highly traumatic conditions? As you can see, it wouldn't really be a fair fight, and as I'm sure Dr. Gary Aguilar has told you, adding "numerous autopsy witnesses" into the mix just further supports the already solid evidentiary case for the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound. The reports and testimony of the law enforcement professionals and the medical professionals would, without any doubt whatsoever, carry the day.

In addition to very serious chain of custody issues, it is precisely all of those reports and testimony that would lead to the exclusion from evidence of the autopsy protocol (and associated photographs and X-rays), and the Zapruder film, except to prove fraud, pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This may not seem like a just result to you, given that you are charged with defending the authenticity and integrity of these very materials, but it would certainly be a just result for those of us seeking to unravel the pernicious effects of the 1963 coup. You've picked the wrong side to be on Mr. Speer.

 

Alright. Let's see if we can find some common ground. You took umbrage at my linking the non-JFK-related theories of James Fetzer with his JFK-related theories. Fair enough. Can we agree then that he has proved a total embarrassment to the JFK research community?

Because part of my distrust of you comes from my knowledge--which is probably not common knowledge--that he is trying to use the continued acceptance of Horne and Mantik's theories by men such as yourself as steps upon which he can climb back into a leadership role within the JFK community.

Can we at least agree that that would be a disaster? 

[Keven Hofeling]

On 4/8/2024 at 6:03 PM, Pat Speer said:

Alright. Let's see if we can find some common ground. You took umbrage at my linking the non-JFK-related theories of James Fetzer with his JFK-related theories. Fair enough. Can we agree then that he has proved a total embarrassment to the JFK research community?

Because part of my distrust of you comes from my knowledge--which is probably not common knowledge--that he is trying to use the continued acceptance of Horne and Mantik's theories by men such as yourself as steps upon which he can climb back into a leadership role within the JFK community.

Can we at least agree that that would be a disaster? 

I don't think we are going to find "common ground" other than perhaps agreeing that James Fetzer has displayed many instances of a lack of discretion in his written articles, such as jumping on board the Judyth Baker bandwagon, supporting the door man controversy, and engaging in some serious disinformation activities in the 911 movement.

But as for Fetzer "...trying to use the continued acceptance of Horne and Mantik's theories by men such as yourself as steps upon which he can climb back into a leadership role within the JFK community..." -- the notion sounds completely paranoid to me.

And in my opinion, your efforts to undermine the reports and testimonial evidence of the assassination law enforcement and medical professionals is just as much of an embarrassment to the research community and has been and is as much of a disaster for the research community as Fetzer's work has been.