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

[Keven Hofeling]

18 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

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

 

Okay, Mr. Von Pein, let's conduct a simple little exercise to determine whether it is I who is the liar in this circumstance or whether it is you who is the liar.

And let's call it

PIN THE "TELL" ON THE LIAR

A. Were you lying, Mr. Von Pein, when on May 6, 2024, you wrote that:

"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)."    https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30412-question-for-pat-speer-who-are-these-key-witnesses-and-what-precisely-is-your-criteria-for-designating-them-as-such/?do=findComment&comment=535354

 

B. Were you lying, Mr. Von Pein, when on January 24, 2024, you wrote that:

"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?"    https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30045-why-pat-speer-owes-the-family-of-dr-robert-mcclelland-an-apology/?do=findComment&comment=526769

 

C. Were you lying, Mr. Von Pein, when on January 4, 2024, you wrote that:

"In addition to his appearance in 1988's "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", Dr. Robert McClelland also performed a "hand-on-his-head" demonstration for the PBS-TV camera in another 1988 television program, "Who Shot President Kennedy?", hosted by Walter Cronkite. In that PBS program, Dr. McClelland twice put his right hand over the upper-right portion of the back of his head to indicate where he said the large wound was located in President Kennedy's head (see the screen captures below)."    https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30045-why-pat-speer-owes-the-family-of-dr-robert-mcclelland-an-apology/?do=findComment&comment=525024

 

Now let's look at C, your January 4, 2024 statement again. You wrote:

"In addition to his appearance in 1988's "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", Dr. Robert McClelland also performed a "hand-on-his-head" demonstration for the PBS-TV camera in another 1988 television program, "Who Shot President Kennedy?", hosted by Walter Cronkite. In that PBS program, Dr. McClelland twice put his right hand over the upper-right portion of the back of his head to indicate where he said the large wound was located in President Kennedy's head (see the screen captures below)."

But at B, in your January 24, 2024 statement, you wrote:

"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)."

And at A, in your May 6, 2024 statement, you wrote:

"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)."

So, Mr. Von Pein, were you lying on January 24 and May 6, 2024 (B & C), were you lying on January 4, 2024 (A), or -- and this is what I frankly think it actually was -- were you lying in ALL three instances (A, B, and C)?

I'm going to leave the honors to you, Mr. Von Pein. Which is it, A, B, or C, or is it, as I believe, all three?

Now pin the "tell" on the liar, Mr. Von Pein...

 

Edited May 7 by Keven Hofeling

[Denise Hazelwood]

22 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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?

In Robinson’s HSCA interview he said “temple.” His interviewers responded by asking “Forehead?” To which he agreed. He only needed a tiny amount of wax to hide it.

[Denise Hazelwood]

On 5/6/2024 at 8:29 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

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!

Exactly!! As I showed in my earlier post, the vast majority of the Parkland doctors—those who were in a position to see the right way of the head where he was laying on the gurney—all described a BACK of the head blow-out. Salter, who couldn’t see that, described a temporal scalp laceration. Baxter described a temporal parietal bone flap. Only one (Girsecke, who apparently mixed up right and left and was admittedly only present for a short time) said that anything was “missing” in this frontal area near the brow line.

 

On 5/6/2024 at 11:07 PM, Keven Hofeling said:

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 ).

I think this is McClelland’s attempt to explain the mismatch between what he saw and what the picture shows, an awareness that 2D images are not 3D images and an attempt to explain without getting into “alterationist” territory, but I am of of the view that the images were deliberately altered, given failure of back of the head images to pass the stereoscopic test and accounts by the Knudsen family, etc. Similarly, the X-rays were also altered, as Mantik (supported by Chesser) goes into great detail to explain.

I myself discovered that the “computer enhanced” “right” lateral X-ray is a composite of the HSCA published image (the “original”—although still containing the “white patch”—only described as “lateral” without specifying right or left in the HSCA documents [I believe it is the LEFT lateral], but captioned as showing the “occipital” blow-out) is a composite made with the “living” right lateral X-ray and presented as the “right lateral” X-ray that was “computer enhanced.” See https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/hsca-published-x-rays.html

 

Edited May 8 by Denise Hazelwood
Auto corrupt change corrected

[David Von Pein]

7 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

I'm going to leave the honors to you, Mr. Von Pein. Which is it, A, B, or C, or is it, as I believe, all three?

What in the world are you babbling about now? I didn't "lie" in any of those statements that you quoted. They are all correct statements and, moreover, they are perfectly consistent with each another.

So what is your point?

[--Awaiting six-mile-long explanation from K.H., which undoubtedly will feature no "point" at all.--]

Edited May 8 by David Von Pein

[Jean Ceulemans]

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

What in the world are you babbling about now? I didn't "lie" in any of those statements that you quoted. They are all correct statements and, moreover, they are perfectly consistent with each another.

So what is your point?

[--Awaiting six-mile-long explanation from K.H., which undoubtedly will feature no "point" at all.--]

Again, agree. Someone is wrapping BS in a colorfull package but actually is simply repeating, no proove of anything IMO. Repeating the same stuff, just in a different way (quote/link/scrn-print). 

Next add a lot of insinuations (to be safe adding question marks behind those).  Has been going on for some time now.  Always the same strategy. 

That how media works these days, people only read headlines and watch pictures... they don´t care what it is based on, they take it for the truth and go to the next headline. Problem: when they do it often enough it will become generally accepted.  That´s how propaganda works..... 

 

Edited May 8 by Jean Ceulemans

[Sandy Larsen]

@Jean Ceulemans @Tom Gram

I've never said that Pat Speer, or anybody else, can't state their opinions. Of course they can.

People can have their own opinions but they can't have their own facts.

What Pat said was a demonstrable falsehood. He's been warned several times that it's a falsehood and he continues to state it as fact.

He stated it as a fact once again in this thread. I once again proved it to be a falsehood.

Posting demonstrable falsehoods is against forum policy, and so I penalized Pat for doing that.

Do you think we should allow forum members to post falsehoods while representing them as facts?

 

[David Von Pein]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What Pat said was a demonstrable falsehood. He's been warned several times that it's a falsehood and he continues to state it as fact.

You just don't seem to understand Pat Speer's basic point.

I think Pat is most definitely incorrect regarding his evaluation of the "McClelland / Left temple" matter. Pat is overstating the importance of this brief hospital admission note.

Plus, after reading over that admission note again just now, it's fairly clear that Dr. McClelland does tell us, on Page 1 of the two-page admission note, that he did, indeed, see a large wound in President Kennedy's head when he says that JFK had suffered "a massive gunshot wound of the head". McClelland just didn't give the specific details concerning the exact location of where that "massive wound" was situated on the President's head.

And I don't think that McClelland's reference to a "left temple" wound on Page 2 of his admission note is referring to the "massive gunshot wound of the head" that he mentions on Page 1. I think the (erroneous) "left temple" reference is meant to indicate the place on JFK's head where Dr. McClelland at that time (at 4:45 PM on 11/22/63) thought the bullet had entered the President's head.

But at least I understand the basic point that Pat Speer is trying to get across (even though Pat is wrong, IMO). You, Sandy, apparently cannot grasp that point at all.

 

Edited May 9 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

You just don't seem to understand Pat Speer's basic point.

 

I know exactly what Pat's point is.

He read the following two statements in Dr. McClelland's admission note:

"The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea."

"The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple."

Pat latched onto the fact that -- unlike all the other doctors and nurses at Parkland hospital -- McClelland didn't specify the location of the massive wound.

So what Pat decides to do is to make McClelland the one-and-only Parkland witness to agree with him on the massive wound location. How does he do that? By conflating the two wounds into one! Which means that McClelland, in Pat's mind, saw a massive wound on Kennedy's left temple!

Oops! That doesn't work out quite right, because it's on the wrong side of the head! So Pat decides to move the left temple wound to the right temple.

Voila! Now Pat has in hand a Parkland witness that agrees with him on the location of the massive wound!

Well, sort of. You see, Pat doesn't believe the massive wound is on the right temple... no, he believes it is above the right ear. But hey, at least Pat has succeeded in moving the wound away from the back of the head, which is where all the other Parkland professionals placed it. And where all of Pat's nemesis researchers place it.

Of course, this is all a lie.

If you read McClelland's WC testimony, or anything else he has ever said or any drawing he has ever made, you will discover that he ALWAYS specified the location of the massive wound to be on the back of the head. You will also discover that McClelland never actually saw the entrance wound in the left temple. He has ALWAYS said that Dr. Jenkins pointed to a wound being there... something that Jenkins himself has corroborated.

And yet, Pat has continued insisting that McClelland saw a massive wound on the right temple and no wound on the back of the head. Even after the multiple times I and Keven Hofeling have shown him that he is wrong.

 

18 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

You, Sandy, apparently cannot grasp that point at all.

What you apparently can't grasp is that Pat made a false statement when he posted this:

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

Pat has a following and people believe what he says to be true. In particular when he doubles down on something after it has been shown to be false. This is bad for the anti-WC cause . (I can see why you want to defend Pat.)

And that is the reason I have decided to clamp down on deceptive tactics. In this case, Pat violated a forum policy and so I was able to penalize him.

Having said that, I will point out that Pat CAN hold and express his opinion about Dr. McClelland, regardless of how intellectually dishonest that is. But he's going to have to state it as being his opinion or belief. He can't state it as fact and expect not to be penalized for it.