QUESTION FOR PAT SPEER: Who are these "KEY WITNESSES," and what precisely is your criteria for designating them as such?

[Keven Hofeling]

@Pat Speer

 

Pat, who are these "KEY WITNESSES" you are referring to below, and what precisely is your criteria for designating them as such?

 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30409-what-james-jenkins-actually-said/?do=findComment&comment=535256

Edited May 6 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

@Pat Speer

 

Pat, who are these "KEY WITNESSES" you are referring to below, and what precisely is your criteria for designating them as such?

 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30409-what-james-jenkins-actually-said/?do=findComment&comment=535256

I'll tell you what. Make a list of the Parkland doctors most involved in Kennedy's treatment, who spent the most time with his body, who wrote reports on what they saw, and testified before the Warren Commission. 

Then go through that list and determine how many of them would come to claim 1) the body was altered, or 2) that the autopsy photos were fake. 

Now go through that same list and double-check this and other forums to see how many of them have been called cowards or liars. 

I have been dealing with the alterationist crowd for 20 years now, and it's clear that, at heart, they could give a rat's butt about what the witnesses actually said, or believed.

Now, your man Mantik told Sandy the large bone fragment found in the limo was frontal bone and that it was missing at Parkland, but that this missing bone was not noticed because the scalp remained intact. 

1. Do you believe this? 

2. Do you realize this means he does not buy into Horne's loopy theory holding that Ed Reed saw Humes cut this bone from the head, was asked to leave, and was then called back to take x-rays? 

 

Edited May 6 by Pat Speer

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

@Keven Hofeling I can't wait to see your self inflicted brain-washed of a narrative fall apart after you answer Pat.

[Keven Hofeling]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I'll tell you what. Make a list of the Parkland doctors most involved in Kennedy's treatment, who spent the most time with his body, who wrote reports on what they saw, and testified before the Warren Commission. 

Then go through that list and determine how many of them would come to claim 1) the body was altered, or 2) that the autopsy photos were fake. 

Now go through that same list and double-check this and other forums to see how many of them have been called cowards or liars. 

I have been dealing with the alterationist crowd for 20 years now, and it's clear that, at heart, they could give a rat's butt about what the witnesses actually said, or believed.

Now, your man Mantik told Sandy the large bone fragment found in the limo was frontal bone and that it was missing at Parkland, but that this missing bone was not noticed because the scalp remained intact. 

1. Do you believe this? 

2. Do you realize this means he does not buy into Horne's loopy theory holding that Ed Reed saw Humes cut this bone from the head, was asked to leave, and was then called back to take x-rays? 

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

I'll tell you what. Make a list of the Parkland doctors most involved in Kennedy's treatment, who spent the most time with his body, who wrote reports on what they saw, and testified before the Warren Commission.

I could generate such a list in short order, using prioritization criteria consistent with established and universally recognized evidentiary principles such as probative value and evidentiary weight, but there is a problem here. Can you see what that problem is?

YOU have made claims about there being "KEY WITNESSES," and this thread is premised upon asking YOU to identify said "KEY WITNESSES," and to divulge the criteria by which you have selected these "KEY WITNESSES."

Now it seems to me that, for some reason, you are attempting to dodge these questions. You seemed pretty confident about the existence of these "KEY WITNESSES" in the post you authored which I used to initiate this thread; is there some reason why you have developed cold feet now that you have been asked to further expound upon your concepts?

I'll tell you what, you answer my questions first, and THEN I will provide you with my list and the criteria for that list. Does that sound fair?

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

Then go through that list and determine how many of them would come to claim 1) the body was altered, or 2) that the autopsy photos were fake.

Has it never occurred to you how unreasonable it is to expect that anybody is ever going to be able to assemble a list of reputable medical professionals who have the intestinal fortitude to claim or even suggest that the American intelligence agencies and the U.S. National Security state would assassinate the President of the United States and then cover it up by subverting military personnel to engage in body alteration and photographic forgery, or is that precisely the reason that you employ such a straw man fallacious argument? These medical professionals have reputations to protect, and families that depend upon them. Who better than to empathize with this, but you, who presents himself as being so incapable of even imagining the possibility of fraudulent photographic evidence? It is nothing short of astonishing that some of them went so far as to suggest that the autopsy photographs are not authentic upon their initial viewing of the materials. Even Doctor McClelland, undoubtedly one of the most courageous medical witnesses, partially capitulated to the back of the head photograph when confronted with it by PBS Nova. The principle of this story is that there are few who are made of the stuff that Dr. David Mantik is, as is to be expected.

And please note that my question for you is the sentence that begins the paragraph above.

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

Now go through that same list and double-check this and other forums to see how many of them have been called cowards or liars.

Come now, is it that these reputable medical professionals have been called "cowards or liars," or is it just that it is convenient for you to make such a claim to justify your own unrelenting assault upon the medical expertise and judgment of the medical professionals because their earliest observations and reports present such an impenetrable barrier against your entire project? Of all people, you are the least well positioned to have such a self-sanctimonious attitude about this, or to exercise such a pretense of righteous indignation. 

Can you see the hypocrisy involved with you, of all people, pretending to be worried about the reputations of the medical professionals who attended to President Kennedy?

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

I have been dealing with the alterationist crowd for 20 years now, and it's clear that, at heart, they could give a rat's butt about what the witnesses actually said, or believed.

Is it really possible that you are so impervious to any type of self-introspection or awareness of your own sins in this regard; and could it be that your own blindness and bullheadedness is largely responsible for the negative experiences you have had and are continuing to have with others? Take it from this "stalker," I really think there might be something to this.

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

 

Now, your man Mantik told Sandy the large bone fragment found in the limo was frontal bone and that it was missing at Parkland, but that this missing bone was not noticed because the scalp remained intact. 

1. Do you believe this? 

2. Do you realize this means he does not buy into Horne's loopy theory holding that Ed Reed saw Humes cut this bone from the head, was asked to leave, and was then called back to take x-rays? 

 

Now read closely. I'm going to now do something that I don't think you have any experience whatsoever doing yourself. I am going to actually respond to your combative questions with answers instead of questions of my own.

And my answers to your questions are the same answers I provided the last time I answered the same questions from you -- instead of responding with questions -- and that is to say that it does not appear to me that Dr. Mantik factors in the damage that resulted from the craniotomy into his analysis, even though he is well aware of the evidence of the craniotomy, such that in this instance he may be experiencing a blind spot due to his training in radiation oncology and does not see that he is being misled by the X-rays. This does not detract in any way from my high opinion of Dr. Mantik as a scholar and a gentleman, and I furthermore acknowledge that he may be right and I may be wrong, but Dr. Mantik and myself are both undergoing a constant evolution in what we know, and we'll just have to see where it all stands in five or ten years from now. And likewise, Doug Horne's interpretation of Ed Reed's testimony could be incorrect, or Ed Reed's own memory of the chain of events could be incorrect. Suggesting either possibility is certainly different by a massive order of magnitude than alleging that twenty Parkland doctors and nurses are all wrong, but I bet that falls within the parameters of your own blind spot (or is contradicted by the mission statement of your limited hangout project).

 

Edited May 6 by Keven Hofeling

[Sandy Larsen]

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I'll tell you what. Make a list of the Parkland doctors most involved in Kennedy's treatment, who spent the most time with his body, who wrote reports on what they saw, and testified before the Warren Commission. 

Then go through that list and determine how many of them would come to claim 1) the body was altered, or 2) that the autopsy photos were fake. 

Now go through that same list and double-check this and other forums to see how many of them have been called cowards or liars.

 

This is a great example of the convoluted process Pat uses to discredit and change the testimonies of the doctors who are the true best witnesses to the gaping wound location. Specifically, here is what he did:

 

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I'll tell you what. Make a list of the Parkland doctors most involved in Kennedy's treatment, who spent the most time with his body, who wrote reports on what they saw, and testified before the Warren Commission. 

 

So far, so good. Pat has shown how to choose the best witnesses of the gaping wound.

That should be the end of Pat statement because the only thing Keven asked for was the identification of the best witnesses.

Problem is, Pat knows that ALL the best witnesses said that the gaping wound was on the back of the head... the right side of the back. And this contradicts what Pat believes. So he knows he has to discredit or alter the testimonies of these men. Which he does next:

 

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Then go through that list and determine how many of them would come to claim 1) the body was altered, or 2) that the autopsy photos were fake. 

 

Aha! Pat isn't interested in where the best witnesses place the gaping wound. He is interested in knowing which ones believe in two CT theories!

What the hell has that got to do with choosing who the best witnesses are? Or accepting what they claim to have seen?

The answer is, absolutely nothing! Pat just wants to discredit the EARLY STATEMENTS of as many of those witnesses as possible. Even though early statements are usually the most reliable ones.

Let's see what else Pat does:

 

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Now go through that same list and double-check this and other forums to see how many of them have been called cowards or liars.

 

Again, what the hell has this got to do with picking the best witnesses? The answer is, nothing!

I can only guess what Pat is trying to do here. I think that he thinks that pro-back-of-head researchers, like Doug Horne and Mantik, single out witnesses who change there testimonies -- upon seeing there is no hole on the back of Kennedy's head in the autopsy photos -- and calls them cowards or liars. So I guess what he is trying to do to discredit those researchers who disagree with his position.

In all my years of dealing with this issue, I have not seen a single researcher call those who have changed their testimony a coward or liar. I've only seen them labeled as succumbing to peer pressure. But even if there are researchers who do call those folks cowards or liars, what would that have to do with the choosing of the best witnesses?

 

Having said that, I want to point out the intellectually honest way of dealing with this phenomenon of changing testimony due to external influence is simply to give greatest weight to EARLY TESTIMONY... before any external influence has had a chance of altering a person's testimony. In contrast, it is intellectually dishonest to use it as a means of supporting one's argument.

 

[Pat Speer]

4 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Pat Speer wrote:

I could generate such a list in short order, using prioritization criteria consistent with established and universally recognized evidentiary principles such as probative value and evidentiary weight, but there is a problem here. Can you see what that problem is?

YOU have made claims about there being "KEY WITNESSES," and this thread is premised upon asking YOU to identify said "KEY WITNESSES," and to divulge the criteria by which you have selected these "KEY WITNESSES."

Now it seems to me that, for some reason, you are attempting to dodge these questions. You seemed pretty confident about the existence of these "KEY WITNESSES" in the post you authored which I used to initiate this thread; is there some reason why you have developed cold feet now that you have been asked to further expound upon your concepts?

I'll tell you what, you answer my questions first, and THEN I will provide you with my list and the criteria for that list. Does that sound fair?

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Has it never occurred to you how unreasonable it is to expect that anybody is ever going to be able to assemble a list of reputable medical professionals who have the intestinal fortitude to claim or even suggest that the American intelligence agencies and the U.S. National Security state would assassinate the President of the United States and then cover it up by subverting military personnel to engage in body alteration and photographic forgery, or is that precisely the reason that you employ such a straw man fallacious argument? These medical professionals have reputations to protect, and families that depend upon them. Who better than to empathize with this, but you, who presents himself as being so incapable of even imagining the possibility of fraudulent photographic evidence? It is nothing short of astonishing that some of them went so far as to suggest that the autopsy photographs are not authentic upon their initial viewing of the materials. Even Doctor McClelland, undoubtedly one of the most courageous medical witnesses, partially capitulated to the back of the head photograph when confronted with it by PBS Nova. The principle of this story is that there are few who are made of the stuff that Dr. David Mantik is, as is to be expected.

And please note that my question for you is the sentence that begins the paragraph above.

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Come now, is it that these reputable medical professionals have been called "cowards or liars," or is it just that it is convenient for you to make such a claim to justify your own unrelenting assault upon the medical expertise and judgment of the medical professionals because their earliest observations and reports present such an impenetrable barrier against your entire project? Of all people, you are the least well positioned to have such a self-sanctimonious attitude about this, or to exercise such a pretense of righteous indignation. 

Can you see the hypocrisy involved with you, of all people, pretending to be worried about the reputations of the medical professionals who attended to President Kennedy?

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Is it really possible that you are so impervious to any type of self-introspection or awareness of your own sins in this regard; and could it be that your own blindness and bullheadedness is largely responsible for the negative experiences you have had and are continuing to have with others? Take it from this "stalker," I really think there might be something to this.

 

Pat Speer wrote:

 

Now read closely. I'm going to now do something that I don't think you have any experience whatsoever doing yourself. I am going to actually respond to your combative questions with answers instead of questions of my own.

And my answers to your questions are the same answers I provided the last time I answered the same questions from you -- instead of responding with questions -- and that is to say that it does not appear to me that Dr. Mantik factors in the damage that resulted from the craniotomy into his analysis, even though he is well aware of the evidence of the craniotomy, such that in this instance he may be experiencing a blind spot due to his training in radiation oncology and does not see that he is being misled by the X-rays. This does not detract in any way from my high opinion of Dr. Mantik as a scholar and a gentleman, and I furthermore acknowledge that he may be right and I may be wrong, but Dr. Mantik and myself are both undergoing a constant evolution in what we know, and we'll just have to see where it all stands in five or ten years from now. And likewise, Doug Horne's interpretation of Ed Reed's testimony could be incorrect, or Ed Reed's own memory of the chain of events could be incorrect. Suggesting either possibility is certainly different by a massive order of magnitude than alleging that twenty Parkland doctors and nurses are all wrong, but I bet that falls within the parameters of your own blind spot (or is contradicted by the mission statement of your limited hangout project).

 

I'm sorry but I stopped reading all this smoke after seeing one bit--that Mantik fails to account for the craniotomy you claim he believes occurred. 

He believes in no such thing. (The thought occurs he's changed his mind for his new book, so if you can stomach reading it and report back on this, it will be appreciated.):

In 2021, on your favorite website, Mantik described what he believes Humes saw at the beginning of the autopsy, and deferred to Robert Groden's presentation of the wound in The Killing of a President. I present this below.

How can you pretend this is consistent with what Horne claims Humes saw? 

You can't. Now I don't have a problem with this. It's healthy, IMO, that Horne and Mantik and Chesser should disagree on some stuff, or even a lot of stuff.

But for decades now people daring to disagree with one or more of them have been assaulted online by sycophants pretending there is a consensus among prominent CTs on what happened on 11-22-63. (Heck, someone recently described me as then lone holdout!) Well, there is anything but...

Now, here's a few more questions if you dare...

1. David Mantik has been claiming since 2000 that Tom Robinson said he saw a bullet hole on Kennedy's forehead. Can you cite where Robinson said this?

2. Since around this same time, Mantik has been citing witnesses claiming to have seen small wounds on JFK's cheek as evidence a bullet came through the windshield. Can you cite who said this, and where? 

[Pat Speer]

18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

This is a great example of the convoluted process Pat uses to discredit and change the testimonies of the doctors who are the true best witnesses to the gaping wound location. Specifically, here is what he did:

 

 

So far, so good. Pat has shown how to choose the best witnesses of the gaping wound.

That should be the end of Pat statement because the only thing Keven asked for was the identification of the best witnesses.

Problem is, Pat knows that ALL the best witnesses said that the gaping wound was on the back of the head... the right side of the back. And this contradicts what Pat believes. So he knows he has to discredit or alter the testimonies of these men. Which he does next:

 

 

Aha! Pat isn't interested in where the best witnesses place the gaping wound. He is interested in knowing which ones believe in two CT theories!

What the hell has that got to do with choosing who the best witnesses are? Or accepting what they claim to have seen?

The answer is, absolutely nothing! Pat just wants to discredit the EARLY STATEMENTS of as many of those witnesses as possible. Even though early statements are usually the most reliable ones.

Let's see what else Pat does:

 

 

Again, what the hell has this got to do with picking the best witnesses? The answer is, nothing!

I can only guess what Pat is trying to do here. I think that he thinks that pro-back-of-head researchers, like Doug Horne and Mantik, single out witnesses who change there testimonies -- upon seeing there is no hole on the back of Kennedy's head in the autopsy photos -- and calls them cowards or liars. So I guess what he is trying to do to discredit those researchers who disagree with his position.

In all my years of dealing with this issue, I have not seen a single researcher call those who have changed their testimony a coward or liar. I've only seen them labeled as succumbing to peer pressure. But even if there are researchers who do call those folks cowards or liars, what would that have to do with the choosing of the best witnesses?

 

Having said that, I want to point out the intellectually honest way of dealing with this phenomenon of changing testimony due to external influence is simply to give greatest weight to EARLY TESTIMONY... before any external influence has had a chance of altering a person's testimony. In contrast, it is intellectually dishonest to use it as a means of supporting one's argument.

 

So we agree then. Dr. McClelland saw a wound on the temple and not on the back of the head. 

 

[Keven Hofeling]

6 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I'm sorry but I stopped reading all this smoke after seeing one bit--that Mantik fails to account for the craniotomy you claim he believes occurred. 

He believes in no such thing. (The thought occurs he's changed his mind for his new book, so if you can stomach reading it and report back on this, it will be appreciated.):

In 2021, on your favorite website, Mantik described what he believes Humes saw at the beginning of the autopsy, and deferred to Robert Groden's presentation of the wound in The Killing of a President. I present this below.

How can you pretend this is consistent with what Horne claims Humes saw? 

You can't. Now I don't have a problem with this. It's healthy, IMO, that Horne and Mantik and Chesser should disagree on some stuff, or even a lot of stuff.

But for decades now people daring to disagree with one or more of them have been assaulted online by sycophants pretending there is a consensus among prominent CTs on what happened on 11-22-63. (Heck, someone recently described me as then lone holdout!) Well, there is anything but...

Now, here's a few more questions if you dare...

1. David Mantik has been claiming since 2000 that Tom Robinson said he saw a bullet hole on Kennedy's forehead. Can you cite where Robinson said this?

2. Since around this same time, Mantik has been citing witnesses claiming to have seen small wounds on JFK's cheek as evidence a bullet came through the windshield. Can you cite who said this, and where? 

You are again attempting to answer my questions with more questions, which you then expect me to answer. Isn't going to happen. READ THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD.

Secondly, the nature of your questions leads me to conclude you either have not closely read or do not understand the comments of my post. Try again, and maybe, just maybe you will get it...

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I have been dealing with the alterationist crowd for 20 years now, and it's clear that, at heart, they could give a rat's butt about what the witnesses actually said, or believed.

 

OMG, that's the most bass-ackward thing I've ever heard!

The whole reason for alterationism is to explain how it is that the evidence doesn't match up with what the witnesses say they saw. ALTERATIONISTS BELIEVE WHAT THE WITNESSES SAY AND THEREFORE BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENCE IS WRONG... i.e, HAS BEEN ALTERED!

It is the non-alterationists who say that the evidence is correct, i.e. unaltered, and therefore the witnesses are wrong!

 

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, your man Mantik told Sandy the large bone fragment found in the limo was frontal bone and that it was missing at Parkland, but that this missing bone was not noticed because the scalp remained intact.

 

Mantik -- like you -- has chosen to believe the official story regarding the three triangular fragments of skull bone being brought in from Dallas. I'm not sure how he figures those bones escaped through the gaping scalp wound at the back of the head.

You are both clearly wrong in my opinion. But I don't have a problem with Mantik because he's honest person as far as I can tell. As I keep pointing out, it is dishonesty that I have little tolerance for.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

30 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

OMG, that's the most bass-ackward thing I've ever heard!

The whole reason for alterationism is to explain how it is that the evidence doesn't match up with what the witnesses say they saw. ALTERATIONISTS BELIEVE WHAT THE WITNESSES SAY AND THEREFORE BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENCE IS WRONG... i.e, HAS BEEN ALTERED!

It is the non-alterationists who say that the evidence is correct, i.e. unaltered, and therefore the witnesses are wrong!

 

 

Mantik -- like you -- has chosen to believe the official story regarding the three triangular fragments of skull bone being brought in from Dallas. I'm not sure how he figures those bones escaped through the gaping scalp wound at the back of the head.

You are both clearly wrong in my opinion. But I don't have a problem with Mantik because he's honest person as far as I can tell. As I keep pointing out, it is dishonesty that I have little tolerance for.

 

 

For 20 years, Mantik has been claiming Tom Robinson saw a bullet hole high on Kennedy's forehead. Is that honest? 

He also tells everyone he can that the large bullet fragment removed during the autopsy was removed from the forehead inches above the right eye, when Humes and everyone who saw its removal said it was removed from behind the right eye (which just so happens to align with the large fragment on the x-rays). Now, tell, me, is that honest? 

As far as your larger point, that alterationists "believe" the witnesses, oh my! Nothing could be further from the truth!

Ed Reed said he saw Humes cut on the head AFTER he took x-rays. Horne claims he took the x-rays after the cutting, and that that is why the x-rays show missing frontal bone. It is a hoax, Sandy. Horne knows his whole theory will implode if he admits the x-rays were taken BEFORE Humes cut on the head. So he simply says what he knows to be untrue so suckers will buy into his hoax. 

Remember Lifton. He developed his theory--the grandfather of all alteration theories--after noticing inconsistencies in the record. When confronted with these inconsistencies the majority of his prime witnesses said essentially "Oh well, I guess we made a mistake." And he then adjusted his theory whereby these former truth-tellers were now liars, and ultimately...part of the conspiracy...  

So, no, "believing" the witnesses is not central to the theories of alterationists. It's believing in oneself, and one's ability to discern truth by piecing together what one wants to believe from the statements of others and never, NEVER, picking up a text book. 

I mean, do M/C bullets make gigantic gaping holes on the top of the head when entering the back of the head and exiting the front? No, of course not. 

So why did the government try to sell that can of goods to the American public?

Because when the evidence is against you, you lie about the evidence... \

For 40 years, the alterationsist crowd has been pushing that the evidence was altered to fool people into believing the scenario pushed by the WC.

But there's a problem with that...and that is that this supposedly faked evidence actually PROVES there was more than three shots...

So why didn't someone notice this?

Uhh... Because nobody looked...

 

Edited May 7 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

56 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So we agree then. Dr. McClelland saw a wound on the temple and not on the back of the head.

 

No, that is one of your persistent lies. Here is what McClelland said:

In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33) Later he said, "...unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy's life) were of no avail." (Emphasis added throughout) (WC--V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, "...massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss." (WC--V6:34)

 

This business about the temple wound 1) was regarding a SMALL entrance wound; 2) was not seen by McClelland himself; 3) was reported by Dr. Jenkins when McClelland asked him where the wound was; and 3) was disavowed by Jenkins when Posner brought it up.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

No, that is one of your lies. Here is what McClelland said:

In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33) Later he said, "...unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy's life) were of no avail." (Emphasis added throughout) (WC--V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, "...massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss." (WC--V6:34)

 

This business about the temple wound 1) was regarding a SMALL entrance wound; 2) was not seen by McClelland himself; 3) was reported by Dr. Jenkins when McClelland asked him where the wound was; and 3) was disavowed by Jenkins when Posner brought it up.

 

No, this is one of your lies, Sandy. You said the earliest statements are what mattered. McClelland said the wound was OF THE LEFT TEMPLE, and then corrected this for a medical journal into saying it was of the right side of the head, and in the meantime he told writer Richard Dudman the throat wound appeared to be an entrance wound, but that there was nothing about the head wound to indicate the shot came from the front. 

 

[David Von Pein]

On 5/6/2024 at 8:59 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

No, that is one of your persistent lies.

On 5/6/2024 at 9:04 PM, Pat Speer said:

No, this is one of your lies, Sandy.

It's kind of fun watching two conspiracy theorists calling each other liars on a daily basis now. I'm enjoying it. Even though such accusations are, of course, in direct violation of one of the most fundamental rules of this forum. But I guess if you're a moderator (or two), you can get away with such infractions. And maybe that's why we can now write out the word LIAR at this forum without it being X'ed out. Perhaps the mods removed that restriction so they themselves can utilize that word more often and more freely (on each other). Nice. 

"No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of lying."  -- Education Forum Rules and Membership Behaviour *

--------------------

EDIT --- The "lying" rule has now been changed to this (as of May 7, 2024 AM):

"No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of posting a falsehood without definitive proof of it being so."

 

Edited May 8 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

42 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

For 20 years, Mantik has been claiming Tom Robinson saw a bullet hole high on Kennedy's forehead. Is that honest? 

 

 Yes it's honest. Here is what Tom Robinson said for the HSCA:

PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy? 
ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it. 
PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound. 
ROBINSON: Yes. 
PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on? 
ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side. 
PURDY: On his right side? 
ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes. 
PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline? 
ROBINSON: Yes. 
PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair? 
ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples. 
PURDY: Approximately what size? 
ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch. 
PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors? 
ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it. 

 

[Keven Hofeling]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

No, this is one of your lies, Sandy. You said the earliest statements are what mattered. McClelland said the wound was OF THE LEFT TEMPLE, and then corrected this for a medical journal into saying it was of the right side of the head, and in the meantime he told writer Richard Dudman the throat wound appeared to be an entrance wound, but that there was nothing about the head wound to indicate the shot came from the front. 

 

You are writing as if there is some kind of consensus that has been reached whereby a large number of other researchers have flocked around your distortions of the meaning of Dr. McClelland's first day Admission Note being that he saw only a large wound at President Kennedy's right temple (which he misdescribed as the left temple) when the fact is that a long list of other researchers, including Dr. Gary Aguilar -- and more recently Sandy Larsen and myself -- have been schooling you for more than a decade on some very simple facts about that Admission Note; that it identified two wounds, a "a massive gunshot wound of the head," which he believed to be the exit wound, and  ''a gunshot wound of the left temple," which he believed to be the wound of entrance, based upon his colleague, Dr. Jenkins having represented to him that there was an entry wound at the left temple.

Let's set the record straight. Dr. McClelland's note unequivocally identified two distinct wounds: a "massive gunshot wound of the head," which he believed to be the exit wound, and "a gunshot wound of the left temple," which he believed to be the entrance wound. Your attempt to twist this into a large right temple wound is a desperate and transparent ploy to fit your narrative. It is evident that Dr. McClelland was mistaken about the left temple wound based on Dr. Jenkins mistakenly telling him that there was a left temple wound, a fact that you conveniently overlook to serve your own agenda.

Your persistent distortions and attempts to manipulate the truth are not only intellectually dishonest but also an insult to the integrity of historical inquiry. It's time to abandon your self-serving narrative and engage with the facts as they stand, rather than perpetuating a skewed version of events to suit your agenda.

____________

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

____________

This too is another one of your distortions of the facts. Dr. McClelland referred to the "massive gunshot wound of the head" in his first day Admission Note (as did Drs. Clark, Carrico, Perry, Baxter and Jenkins in their accompanying Admission Notes), and he likewise thereafter consistently described and demonstrated that wound until the day of his death. To demonstrate this, let's take the evidence you present to the contrary on your website, which we'll call Exhibit A:

In Exhibit A you present screenshots of Dr. McClelland with his right hand on his head demonstrating the large avulsive back of the head wound from TMWKK and KRON's JFK: An Unsolved Mystery, and in parenthesis you tell us to "Just look at the locations of his fingers in comparison to his hairline...," to stand for your proposition that McClelland was actually demonstrating your side of the head wound instead of the occipital-parietal wound he has always described.

There is a problem with the screenshots you use in Exhibit A however, and it is a BIG PROBLEM!

The actual footage from the TMWKK episode shows that McClelland is actually just resting his fingers on the top of his head while rubbing his thumb up and down the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of his head to indicate the location of the large wound, right where he has ALWAYS maintained that it was located. And you have cherry picked a frame from that segment and have falsely described it as being McClelland indicating that the large wound was instead on the side of JFK's head.

As can be seen in the following clip of McClelland's entire hand gesture, he is running his thumb up and down on the right side of the back of his head as he describes the location of the large head wound to the interviewer. 

Moreover, there is no way you could have merely been confused about what Dr. McClelland was communicating with his hand gesture when you were capturing the screenshot from the segment because at the time, in that video, he was saying the following:

"Almost a fifth or perhaps even a quarter of the right back part of the head in this area here [AT WHICH POINT MCLELLAND RAN HIS THUMB UP AND DOWN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD] had been blasted out along with probably most of the brain tissue in the area."

See SEGMENT ON YOUTUBE:

 

Likewise, the actual footage from the KRON episode shows that McClelland is again just resting his fingers on the top of his head while rubbing his thumb up and down the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of his head to indicate the location of the large wound, right where he has ALWAYS maintained that it was located. And you have cherry picked a frame from this segment as well and have falsely described it as being McClelland indicating that the large wound was instead on the side of JFK's head.

As can be seen in the following clip of McClelland's entire hand gesture, he is running his thumb up and down on the right side of the back of his head as he describes the location of the large head wound to the interviewer.  It is not as obvious as it is in the TMWKK episode, but if you watch how his wrist moves, you can see that his manner of demonstrating the wound is to rest his fingers higher on his head and to feel around for the occipital bone with his thumb.

And if you have any doubt at all, simply listen in the video of the segment to hear that as Dr. McLelland is feeling the back of his head with his thumb, he is saying the following:

"It was in the right back part of the head -- very large..."

See SEGMENT ON YOUTUBE:

Such trickery is the law of the land for Mr. Speer, and others like him, such as David Von Pein, who has the following meme of deceptive screenshots on his website:

To debunk Mr. Von Pein -- as we just debunked Mr. Speer -- I wrote the following:

Here's the problem: You've presented this meme of Dr. McClelland in the 1988 PBS Nova program "Who Shot President Kennedy" in support of the notion that he was communicating that the large avulsive back of the head wound that he reported to the Warren Commission was actually on the side of JFK's head in the parietal area over the ear.

But close examination of the program reveals that your two screenshots comprising your Lone Nutter meme were taken when McClelland quickly made these gestures while highly animated in thought and speech, making for a very misleading impression of what he was intending to communicate.

I say this because in the same program, within minutes of the footage from which you derived these two screenshots, Dr. McClelland takes his hand and swirls his fingers in a vertically oriented oval shape on the back of his head to demonstrate the location of the large avulsive wound, as follows:

I have slowed this footage down to 25% of its normal playing speed and turned it into a GIF to highlight his oval shaped vertical gesture.

Moreover, we can be certain that McClelland was much more focused on presenting an accurate demonstration of the dimensions of the back of the head wound at this time -- as opposed to your screenshots -- because while doing so (when presenting his rationalization for why the large avulsive wound is not visible in the BOH autopsy photos) he was saying the following (AND PLEASE NOTE THAT I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THE EXACT WORDS HE IS SAYING WHILE MAKING THE OVAL SHAPED GESTURE IN RED).

_____________

"The Pathologist has taken this loose piece of scalp which is hanging back this way in most of the pictures, exposing this large wound, and has pulled the scalp forward to take a picture..."

_____________

As follows is a video of the segment described above to allow you to appreciate the importance of what Dr. McClelland is saying simultaneous with his hand gesture (it is at 50:37 through 50:53 of the original program at this link:   https://youtu.be/SL9orid231c?si=4Fo7ICwInJX-rxKO ).

 

So although Mr. Speer is a "limited hangout" version of Mr. Von Pein, we can see that these types who deny the first day medical testimony and relentlessly fight for the integrity of the Autopsy Protocol, Photos, X-Rays and the Zapruder film are more alike than Speer would ever admit. In short, the misrepresentations about Dr. McClelland -- as demonstrated in Exhibit A -- serving as the foundation of Speer's crusade against the voluminous evidence of JFK's large avulsive back-of-the-head wound, all comes down like a house of cards upon a showing that his bedrock assumptions are demonstrably false. 

Again, Dr. McClelland referred to the "massive gunshot wound of the head" in his first day Admission Note (as did Drs. Clark, Carrico, Perry, Baxter and Jenkins in their accompanying Admission Notes), and McClelland likewise thereafter consistently described and demonstrated that wound until the day of his death, and as we have seen above, the evidence Speer presents to the contrary is nothing more than the sophistry of deceptively labeled screenshots.

 

Edited May 7 by Keven Hofeling