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

[Sandy Larsen]

 

Above, Pat Speer said: "Dr. McClelland saw a wound on the temple and not on the back of the head."

Pat has been shown multiple times that his claim is false. I proved it one more time (above) by posting this:

 

Quote

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)

 

It is against forum rules to post something that is demonstrably false. Though the moderators have historically been tolerant of this behavior, as far as I can tell.

However, upon seeing above that Pat had switched things around, calling me the liar, I decided I'd had enough. I have penalized Pat for posting something that is demonstrably false. And I will do so in the future if he continues to post falsehoods.

In addition, it is against forum rules to say a member has lied when in fact he hasn't. I have penalized Pat for that as well.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours 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? 

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? 

 

Pat,

Every single time I've spent the time fact checking something you've claimed, I've found you to be wrong. Just like I did with your first paragraph I quote above.

I'm not going to waste my time on your second paragraph. But I'll bet anybody with $100 that either you've mischaracterized what Mantik said, or what Humes said, or that Mantik isn't claiming that he's right but rather is hypothesizing.

You have lost all credibility.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

It's kind of fun watching two conspiracy theorists calling each other liars on a daily basis now.

 

The difference is that Pat lied and I didn't.

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

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.

I was, of course, doing no such thing. I have never communicated the idea that I have ever thought that Dr. McClelland ever placed the large head wound anywhere except the far-right-rear portion of JFK's head.

I have no idea how or why you have latched on to the goofy notion that I was trying to say that McClelland was placing the wound "over the ear" in the above screen captures from the 1988 NOVA program. I never said any such thing. You just decided to make that up (for some reason).

Here's the way I set Keven straight when this same subject first surfaced here in January of this year:

"I have no idea why Keven Hofeling is blasting me on the McClelland "hands-on demonstrations" topic. McClelland's "demonstrations" have ALWAYS placed the large "blow out" wound at the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head (with very little variation). So where's the disagreement there, Keven? The disagreement comes, of course, when I point out the fact that Dr. McClelland was 100% wrong, as proven for all time by the HSCA-authenticated autopsy photos and X-rays, plus the Z-Film, which also proves that ALL of the witnesses who said there was a huge blow-out wound at the rear of Kennedy's head were dead wrong. But CTers like Keven Hofeling will, evidently, continue to pretend that the autopsy photos AND the X-rays AND the Zapruder Film AND the autopsy report AND the testimony of all 3 autopsy surgeons are ALL (in perfect tandem) fake/phony/altered/manufactured." -- DVP; January 24, 2024

 

Edited May 7 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

.....

Edited May 7 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

35 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The difference is that Pat lied and I didn't.

And, of course, it is YOU (and you alone) who now gets to decide who has "lied" and who hasn't, is that it?

And a member now gets punished for expressing his OPINION about a particular subject, eh?

Pat seems to really believe that McClelland (in his initial report) was talking about a large wound in the left temple. I think Pat is dead wrong on this McClelland/Left Temple subject. McClelland's "left temple" reference, as you and others have correctly pointed out earlier, was referring to the alleged ENTRY wound that McClelland said was being pointed out by Dr. Jenkins. This was, of course, all just one big misunderstanding on McClelland's part. But Pat Speer evaluates this situation differently. And Pat's certainly entitled to his opinion....as am I and all other EF members.

So what it boils down to is ---- You, Sandy, are penalizing Pat for having a different opinion than yours.

Do you think that's fair?

 

Edited May 7 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

So what it boils down to is ---- You, Sandy, are penalizing Pat for having a different opinion than yours.

 

Let me make this simple for you, David.

Pat said: "Dr. McClelland saw a wound on the temple and not on the back of the head."

Dr. McClelland said: "...the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted.... and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out."

There is no difference of opinion. What Pat said is false. And it has been shown to be false to him many times.  Yet he continues to post it.

That is a forum violation and I have penalized Pat for it.

 

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Do you think that's fair?

 

Look, if Pat were to say that it is his opinion that McClellan saw a gaping wound on Kennedy's temple, I'd probably let it slide. But he keeps stating it as though it were a fact. And it just isn't.

We can't have members going around saying things that aren't true, as though they are.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The difference is that Pat lied and I didn't.

And, of course, it is YOU (and you alone) who now gets to decide who has "lied" and who hasn't, is that it?

 

Any member can call out another member for posting demonstrably false information as though it were true. However, in doing so the member must prove that the information is false.

If you think I've lied, prove it and I will remove what I said.

 

[Paul Cummings]

Keven, keep up the good work.

[Jean Ceulemans]

9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

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

 

IMO, I have to agree with David on this

[Jean Ceulemans]

7 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

And, of course, it is YOU (and you alone) who now gets to decide who has "lied" and who hasn't, is that it?

And a member now gets punished for expressing his OPINION about a particular subject, eh?

Pat seems to really believe that McClelland (in his initial report) was talking about a large wound in the left temple. I think Pat is dead wrong on this McClelland/Left Temple subject. McClelland's "left temple" reference, as you and others have correctly pointed out earlier, was referring to the alleged ENTRY wound that McClelland said was being pointed out by Dr. Jenkins. This was, of course, all just one big misunderstanding on McClelland's part. But Pat Speer evaluates this situation differently. And Pat's certainly entitled to his opinion....as am I and all other EF members.

So what it boils down to is ---- You, Sandy, are penalizing Pat for having a different opinion than yours.

Do you think that's fair?

 

Also agree on this one.  Where does it stop if we can not express different points of view...

[Tom Gram]

35 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Also agree on this one.  Where does it stop if we can not express different points of view...

Agreed. This is ludicrous. Pat is entitled to his opinion. What’s next? DVP gets suspended for saying Oswald acted alone? 

This is supposed to be a debate forum, not a safe space circle jerk for people who can’t handle different points of view. 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Agreed. This is ludicrous. Pat is entitled to his opinion. What’s next? DVP gets suspended for saying Oswald acted alone? 

This is supposed to be a debate forum, not a safe space circle jerk for people who can’t handle different points of view. 

Tom,

     There are matters of fact, and matters of opinion, or "point of view."

     As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."

     So, Sandy Larsen is correct on this one, IMO.  If a forum member repeatedly posts falsehoods-- statements that are contrary to the facts-- is that acceptable?

     We are numb to this Orwellian phenomenon in our modern "post-truth" society-- the repetition of falsehoods.

     It's a major problem.

[Richard Bertolino]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The difference is that Pat lied and I didn't.

 

DVP doesn't care about that. He spends half of his time saying that "conspiracists" never critcize each other and the other half drooling when they do. This is the usual approach taken by Nutters. Truth simply is not of any importance to them. Dey here to fight.

[Denise Hazelwood]

 

Here’s a rundown of Parkland doctors (“Key Witnesses”) WC under oath testimonies concerning the location of the head wound.

Necessary terminology:

 

Posterior—back/rear area of the body.

 

Parietal bone—located mostly on the upper side of the head, extending to the rear of the head.

 

Occipital bone/occiput—located low at the back of the skull.

 

Cerebral/cerebrum—upper part of the brain, can be towards the front or back of the head.

 

Cerebellum—located low at the back of the head.

 

Witnesses: from the Warren Commission Hearings, volume and page number given.

 

Dr. Charles Carrico

5- by 71- (sic) cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region” vol III p. 361

 

“…large gaping wound located in the right occipitalparietal area…about 5 to 7 cm in size, more or less circular…” vol VI p. 6

 

(Denise: obviously there was a typo error in the first testimony. Roughly 2.5 cm to 1 inch, so roughly 2-3 inches around. I do think that the wound was larger than that but blood and brain matter may have obscured it)

 

Dr. Malcolm Perry 

 “…large avulsive wound in the right parietal occipital area…” vol III p. 372

 

“…large wound of the right posterior parietal area in the head exposing lacerated brain.” vol VI p. 9

 

“…a large avulsive injury of the right occipitalparietal area” vol VI p. 11

 

Dr. William Kenp Clark

“…a large gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebella’s tissue being damaged and exposed “ vol VI p.20

 

Dr. Robert Nelson McClelland

“…right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted…parietal bone…fractured along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half…probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebella’s tissue had been blasted out.” vol VI p.33

 

Dr. Charles Rufus Baxter

“…the right side of his head had been blown off…cerebellum was present—a large quantity of brain was present on the cart…temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side…a large area…6 by 8 or 10 cm of lacerated brain oozing from this wound” vol VI p. 41

 

(Denise: temporal parietal bone flap but cerebellum—from the back of the head—on the cart. I count him as the “confusing” account.)

 

Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins

“…cerebellum…was herniated from the wound” vol VI p. 48

 

Dr. Ronald Coy Jones

“…a large wound in the right posterior side of the head…large defect in the back of the head” vol VI p. 53

 

Drs Curtis and Bashour did not describe any head wound location clues in their testimonies.

 

Dr. Gene Coleman Akin

“…The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding” vol VI p.65

 

Dr. Paul Conrad Peters

“…a large defect in the occiput…It seems to me that in the right occipitalparietal area there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in this area.” Vol VI p.71

 

Dr. Adolph Hartung Giesecke, Jr.

“…it seemed to me that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the brow line to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing.” (Asked if on the left or right side of the head) I would say the left, but this is just my memory of it…I was there a very short time—really.” Vol VI p.74

 

(Denise: left-right confusion and memory exaggeration? He is the only one who describes anything on the left side of the head and missing “cranium” “from the brow line” to the occiput. Perhaps inferring missing bone under the torn scalp even if the bone was actually there? He admittedly only had a brief look, and I don’t think his memory was all that great.)

 

Dr. Jackie Hansen Hunt

(Saw JFK’s face but didn’t know any wounds)

Vol VI p.77

 

Dr. Kenneth Salyer

“…wound in his right temporal region…gaping scalp wound…I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that—nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound—cranial wound.” Vol VI p. 81

 

(Denise: SCALP laceration, not missing bone with extruding brain as described by those who could see the back right side of the head)

 

Dr. Martin G. White

(Didn’t describe head wound)

 

 

Summary:

Doctors who saw a wound at the BACK right side of the head, who said ”posterior” or “occipital” or “occipitalparietal”, or “cerebellum”: 8

 

Doctors who described something in the “temporal” region (“scalp” wound only or “missing cranium”): 2 (one of whom said “left” side)

 

Confusing account (said “cerebellum” which is at the back of the head and “temporal” wound): 1

 

Didn’t indicate the wound location: 4