Paul Cummings Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 31 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said: IMO, it is when mod´s start having their own discussions on it being a semantics thing or not, the same the name-calling goes on... pffft. Greg asked same clear to-the-point questions, K doesn´t even want to answer them and replies with the same txts and pictures he has posted over and over again... IMO that´s a mess. But I´m fine with you feeling different about that, no problem. That Mod also includes Speer. He's not a victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Blackmon Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 9 hours ago, David Von Pein said: But what about the Zapruder Film? It most certainly does NOT show a big hole in the BACK of President Kennedy's head. If so, that's a heck of a lot of fakery you've got to prove. How about some proof that the unusual black splotch at the back of JFK's head is only shadow and not something artificially created? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Ceulemans Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 1 hour ago, Paul Cummings said: That Mod also includes Speer. He's not a victim. I know, and I don´t see him as a victim. Even has nothing to do with it, as Pat has not used that in his favor, perhaps other mod´s have? I don´t even know, and I even don´t know who all the mod´s are. When a mod is judge, jury and executioner, that would be just bad, not? Wouldn´t one of the other mod´s react? Well... I´m not sure anymore... that´s a mess IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 (edited) 4 hours ago, Paul Cummings said: That Mod also includes Speer. He's not a victim. To be clear, I haven't been an active mod since John Simkin left the forum. I do not participate in decisions, and have little sway with those who make decisions. As far as Keven's claim I called James Jenkins a liar. It's not as simple as that. James Jenkins story changed but I suspect he's not even aware of it. I don't recall calling him a liar. And if I did I publicly apologize for that. As stated, I have met Jenkins and consider him a sincere person...doing his best. Now Keven was a lawyer--he surely must know that people's stories change all the time. And the fact Jenkins' story has changed was not something I drummed up...this was something David Lifton started complaining about over 20 years ago, and recorded in a long detailed memo. Now I spoke to Lifton about this and he claimed that several aspects of Jenkins' story were added in later, 10 years or more after he was first interviewed by Lifton. To wit, Jenkins made no mention of a bullet wound by the ear to the HSCA or Lifton...and only began claiming this after talking to Livingstone, if I recall. And I am fairly certain there were several other additions pointed out to me by Lifton, who said Jenkins was so malleable that he agreed with the depiction of the wound in the Ida Dox tracing of the BOH photo when first shown this by Lifton...in an interview filmed at Lifton's expense. Now, I like you, was surprised by this, and went back to view Lifton's interview of Jenkins in the Best Evidence research video...only to find that there is no interview of Jenkins in the video. And I wish Lifton was here to ask about this, but I can only assume Lifton felt Jenkins' statements weren't particularly important. By voicing agreement with the Dox drawing, after all, Jenkins had simply said what Lifton had already come to believe...that the autopsy photos were legit and reflective of the body after it was altered. In any event, I was there in the room in 2013 when Jenkins told a small audience the very top of the back of the head was missing but that the skull between the ears was fractured, and that this fractured skull fell to the table when Humes retracted the scalp, and left a much larger hole. And I was dismayed when years later, while promoting his book, he said the exact opposite--that the hole was on the far back of the skull and the top of the head was fractured and fell to the table. Now Keven doesn't want to believe this--that Jenkins changed his story. But here he is with Law pointing out the location of the hole... And here he is in 2018, while pointing out the location of the hole... It moved, right? And you don't have to trust me on this. Jenkins said the wound pointed out by his finger was 2 in wide by 3 1/2 in high. Well, look where his finger-tip is. Just above the lambdoid suture which forms the boundary between parietal and occipital. So the majority of this wound according to 2018 Jenkins was on the occipital bone, right? Well, if you have High Treason 2, your can check this for yourself. On page 228 he tells Livingstone the wound was "just above the occipital area." Now some people use the term "occipital area" as a broad brush which includes the parietal bone at the top of the back of the head. But no one uses the term to mean the bottom of the occipital bone--that is, no one would say something was above the occipital area that still overlay the occipital bone. So in 1990, when speaking to Livingstone, Jenkins specified that the wound was inches higher than he would later come to claim. It moved, right? Edited May 31 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Cummings Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said: I know, and I don´t see him as a victim. Even has nothing to do with it, as Pat has not used that in his favor, perhaps other mod´s have? I don´t even know, and I even don´t know who all the mod´s are. When a mod is judge, jury and executioner, that would be just bad, not? Wouldn´t one of the other mod´s react? Well... I´m not sure anymore... that´s a mess IMO Yet, he isn't because Pat is still in here. Let's spare with the drama and stick with the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 (edited) 8 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said: How about some proof that the unusual black splotch at the back of JFK's head is only shadow and not something artificially created? I have a much better idea.... How about if the conspiracy theorists were to actually prove any of their outrageous and far-fetched claims concerning alleged fakery in the JFKA evidence? That'd be a refreshing change for everyone, wouldn't it? Edited May 31 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 I posted this on Jacks a couple days ago... I'm a founding member of the Pat Speer Not A Fan Club (established 2003). I agree with a lot of Sandy's and Keven's critiques of Pat's tendencies to misrepresent witness testimony. But their ad hominem detracts from that critique. "Penalize" Speer for "lying"? I've been around and around with Speer more than anyone. He suffers from a severe case of confirmation bias. I think good-natured condescension laden with on-beat zingers is the best approach. (see Wilson, Alex) I have little regard for the head wound(s) discussion. Whether he was shot in the head once, twice, or thrice will never be known. Questions: What did Lee Harvey Oswald have to do with the actual killing of JFK? Nothing. What did CE399 have to do with the murder of JFK? Nothing. How many times did JFK get shot in the head? Unknowable. Why the [f-bomb] do those 3 subjects suck all the air out of the JFKA Critical Community? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 28 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: But [Keven and Sandy's] ad hominem detracts from that critique. Calling someone out for lying is not ad hominem. 28 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: "Penalize" Speer for "lying"? Posting demonstrable falsehoods is against forum rules. There is a good reason for imposing this rule. 28 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: I think good-natured condescension laden with on-beat zingers is the best approach. Good-natured condescension will not prevent members from believing/learning Pat's lies. I have a better idea... why not let members call out Pat (or anybody else) when they post something in a way that presents it as being factual when in fact it is not? That way the errant member can qualify his statement with something like "I believe that..." This is, in fact, the way it has always been on the forum. Explain why it is we should make an exception for Pat. We should have a learned from yesterday's court conviction that nobody is above the law. Make no mistake about it... if it were just some Joe Blow we were talking about here, nobody would have come to his defense. It is only because of Pat's status in the community that several have come to his defense. Well in my opinion, these people are all bad-habit enablers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Calling someone out for lying is not ad hominem.Posting demonstrable falsehoods is against forum rules. There is a good reason for imposing this rule. Pat believes what he says is true. That's how advanced his confirmation bias is. He is incapable of processing obvious fact (e.g. the top of the back isn't four inches below the bottom of the collar) Because he believes it to be true doesn't make him a liar, makes him intellectually dishonest on account of advanced confirmation bias. 8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Good-natured condescension will not prevent members from believing/learning Pat's lies. I have a better idea... why not let members call out Pat (or anybody else) when they post something in a way that presents it as being factual when in fact it is not? That way the errant member can qualify his statement with something like "I believe that..." There you go! Good idea. Long ago I advised Pat to preface his analyses with "IF the aupopsy report on the back wound was true, then--" Instead he insists inferior evidence is true. Poor guy. 8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: This is, in fact, the way it has always been on the forum. Explain why it is we should make an exception for Pat. I think its wrong to accuse the delusional of lying. 8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: We should have a learned from yesterday's court conviction that nobody is above the law. Make no mistake about it... if it were just some Joe Blow we were talking about here, nobody would have come to his defense. It is only because of Pat's status in the community that several have come to his defense. Well in my opinion, these people are all bad-habit enablers. I've taken more grief battling Pat's BS than you can imagine. A couple guys at ROKC wanted to kick my head in. DiEugenio said "everybody is sick of it" -- referring to my consistent destruction of Pat's arguments. Ridicule is more effective, Sandy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 33 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: I think its wrong to accuse the delusional of lying. Well so do I. I will have to consult with a psychologist friend on this possible diagnosis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 (edited) Sandy this is a serious question. In those video images of Jenkins in which he displays his palm and splayed fingers and says his fingertips approximate the location and extent of the gaping wound that he saw, if I in good faith believe some of the area of that gaping wound as depicted visually by Jenkins includes part of the crown area of the head, would I be forbidden under your rule from saying Jenkins portrayed part of the gaping wound as at "the crown of his head"? "The crown of your head is the area at the very top of your skull", HEALTHLINE site https://www.healthline.com/health/crown-of-head. "The crown is the top portion of the head behind the vertex", Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_(anatomy) etc. https://postimg.cc/YhMQVgq8 [url=https://postimages.org/][img]https://i.postimg.cc/hP7MX1FF/temp-Imagep-T4h-LP.avif[/img][/url] [url=https://postimg.cc/YhMQVgq8][img]https://i.postimg.cc/YhMQVgq8/temp-Imagep-T4h-LP.avif[/img][/url] <a href='https://postimg.cc/YhMQVgq8' target='_blank'><img src='https://i.postimg.cc/YhMQVgq8/temp-Imagep-T4h-LP.avif' border='0' alt='temp-Imagep-T4h-LP'/></a> [url=https://postimg.cc/YhMQVgq8][img]https://i.postimg.cc/YhMQVgq8/temp-Imagep-T4h-LP.avif[/img][/url] [temp-Imagep-T4h-LP.avif](https://postimg.cc/YhMQVgq8) https://ibb.co/7Kb0DKV [Sorry I cannot get any of these links from postimgcc to display a graphic of a head with the "crown" area marked, but the underlined link goes to it. Or look up "crown" in Google Images to see where in the head it is.] See the magenta colored area number "3", "crown"? Are you saying it is a "demonstrable falsehood" and forbidden under forum rules for someone on this forum to say Jenkins displayed part of the gaping wound as in the crown area aka "the top of your skull" and "the top portion of the head behind the vertex"? Do you think the gaping wound of JFK included area in the crown, Sandy? Do you think Jenkins' visual illustrations of his memory of that wound, reasonably interpreted, included some part of the crown? Edited June 1 by Greg Doudna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said: Sandy this is a serious question. In those video images of Jenkins in which he displays his palm and splayed fingers and says his fingertips approximate the location and extent of the gaping wound that he saw, if I in good faith believe some of the area of that gaping wound as depicted visually by Jenkins includes part of the crown area of the head, would I be forbidden under your rule from saying Jenkins portrayed part of the gaping wound as at "the crown of his head"? Greg, First off, if you began your sentence with "I believe," then you could say anything without breaking the "demonstrable falsehood" rule. Because you would be stating an opinion. Second, if you say anything in good faith, that would not be a violation of the rule. In that case, if another member pointed out that what you are said is a falsehood, and proved it to be a falsehood, then you would be in violation of the rule only if you refused to correct it, or edit it to say that it is you opinion or belief. Having said that, I will now answer your specific question, which is: 1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said: ...if I in good faith believe some of the area of that gaping wound as depicted visually by Jenkins includes part of the crown area of the head, would I be forbidden under your rule from saying Jenkins portrayed part of the gaping wound as at "the crown of his head"? Of course that would not be violating the rule. Because what you said would be true. 1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said: Are you saying it is a "demonstrable falsehood" and forbidden under forum rules for someone on this forum to say Jenkins displayed part of the gaping wound as in the crown area aka "the top of your skull" and "the top portion of the head behind the vertex"? I'm pretty sure that Jenkins said the large wound extended into the crown of the head. That is the impression I got from listening to what he said. But it was mostly in the back. 1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said: Do you think the gaping wound of JFK included area in the crown, Sandy? A little bit, yes. From all the descriptions I've read from all the witnesses, I get the impression that they saw a various sized wound at somewhat various locations because of the ragged edges of the scalp. Some saw the wound with the ragged edges more closed up, and others saw it with the ragged edges more opened up. Thus making the hole look smaller or larger, respectively. 1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said: Do you think Jenkins' visual illustrations of his memory of that wound, reasonably interpreted, included some part of the crown? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Greg, First off, if you began your sentence with "I believe," then you could say anything without breaking the "demonstrable falsehood" rule. Because you would be stating an opinion. Second, if you say anything in good faith, that would not be a violation of the rule. In that case, if another member pointed out that what you are said is a falsehood, and proved it to be a falsehood, then you would be in violation of the rule only if you refused to correct it, or edit it to say that it is you opinion or belief. Having said that, I will now answer your specific question, which is: Of course that would not be violating the rule. Because what you said would be true. I'm pretty sure that Jenkins said the large wound extended into the crown of the head. That is the impression I got from listening to what he said. But it was mostly in the back. A little bit, yes. From all the descriptions I've read from all the witnesses, I get the impression that they saw a various sized wound at somewhat various locations because of the ragged edges of the scalp. Some saw the wound with the ragged edges more closed up, and others saw it with the ragged edges more opened up. Thus making the hole look smaller or larger, respectively. Yes. Thanks for the straight answers Sandy, and I think I agree right down the line with you on them. But if you noticed in what I previously quoted, that has you saying the wound (of Jenkins' description) was at what is idiomatically routinely referred to (e.g. on a medical website; on Wikipedia, as quoted), as the "top" of the head, which is what Pat Speer has been unmercifully excoriated for saying. If you have the wound as part of the crown (which I agree with you I believe it clearly was, and Jenkins had it there), is it clear Keven's language is appropriate that Pat is "lying" in all the heat over Pat arguing for a top of the head location of the gaping wound? You yourself seem to have agreed with Cliff Varnell that Pat Speer believes what he says. But if someone believes what they say, that is not lying. It may or may not be mistaken, right, wrong, insightful, foolish, whatever. But it is not lying if a person believes what they are saying, and Pat does. So you have Keven with impunity calling Pat Speer directly a liar, which should be a violation of forum rules, and then adding to that having the effrontery to put a horrible word into Pat Speer's mouth in which Keven repeatedly says, brazenly, that Pat called Jenkins a "liar" and Keven refuses to cite a quotation, document his assertion (I am referring to use of the specific word liar and lying). And it is clear Keven is going to make a vendetta out of hounding Pat including with these under-the-belt tactics (of calling Pat a liar when Pat clearly believes his views, and putting horrible words in Pat's mouth that Keven refuses to document) ... unless you or other moderators restrain Keven. I looked up the forum rules. I see "No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member". I see where you are claiming the legitimacy of your prohibition that Pat must not say Jenkins had the gaping wound at the top of the head, at: "A member will not use this board to post any comment or material which is demonstrably false ... inaccurate (as well as defamatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law). Is it "demonstrably false" when Pat says Jenkins had the gaping wound at the top of the head, when you yourself have just now agreed it partly was in the crown which in American English is understood to be "top of the head"? Edited June 1 by Greg Doudna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted June 1 Author Share Posted June 1 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: ...So you have Keven with impunity calling Pat Speer directly a liar, which should be a violation of forum rules, and then adding to that having the effrontery to put a horrible word into Pat Speer's mouth in which Keven repeatedly says, brazenly, that Pat called Jenkins a "liar" and Keven refuses to cite a quotation, document his assertion (I am referring to use of the specific word liar and lying). And it is clear Keven is going to make a vendetta out of hounding Pat including with these under-the-belt tactics (of calling Pat a liar when Pat clearly believes his views, and putting horrible words in Pat's mouth that Keven refuses to document) ... unless you or other moderators restrain Keven. I looked up the forum rules. I see "No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member".... @Sandy Larsen, with regard to the above assertion of Mr. Doudna (highlighted in bold red) -- who has obviously made himself the chief defender of Pat Speer's lies on this thread -- I yesterday responded to his frantic posts calling for citations by letting him know I would present him with an eight-year history of Pat Speer lying about James Jenkins in his posts on this forum, and having started to catalogue those lies this morning, the still ongoing project has turned into a FOURTEEN-YEAR LONG HISTORY OF MR. SPEER LYING ABOUT THE HISTORICAL CLAIMS OF JAMES JENKINS IN POSTS ON THIS FORUM. So that fourteen-year history will be posted just as soon as I have completed it. One of the things that became overwhelmingly clear to me as I researched the history of Mr. Speer's lies about James Jenkins on this forum, is that all along, you and many others have made efforts to educate Pat Speer about the error and illegitimacy of his fraudulent misrepresentations about Jenkins; so Mr. Doudna can be assured that Speer has absolutely no excuse for persisting with these lies for all of these years. Meanwhile, I have been watching for Mr. Doudna to post just ONE example of James Jenkins ever claiming that he saw a hole on the top of JFK's head (as Mr. Speer has been completely unable to do so, and it seems to me that as the chief defender of Pat Speer's lies on this thread, it is the least he can do, especially considering that he is calling upon me for citations). And finally, last night I received from William Law a comment from James Jenkins on these lies that Speer has been telling about him: James Jenkins wrote "it doesn't deserve a comment it is so ludicrous." Edited June 1 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 48 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: Thanks for the straight answers Sandy, and I think I agree right down the line with you on them. But if you noticed in what I previously quoted, that has you saying the wound (of Jenkins' description) was at what is idiomatically routinely referred to (e.g. on a medical website; on Wikipedia, as quoted), as the "top" of the head, which is what Pat Speer has been unmercifully excoriated for saying. If you have the wound as part of the crown (which I agree with you I believe it clearly was, and Jenkins had it there), is it clear Keven's language is appropriate that Pat is "lying" in all the heat over Pat arguing for a top of the head location of the gaping wound? You yourself seem to have agreed with Cliff Varnell that Pat Speer believes what he says. But if someone believes what they say, that is not lying. It may or may not be mistaken, right, wrong, insightful, foolish, whatever. But it is not lying if a person believes what they are saying, and Pat does. So you have Keven with impunity calling Pat Speer directly a liar, which should be a violation of forum rules, and then adding to that having the effrontery to put a horrible word into Pat Speer's mouth in which Keven repeatedly says, brazenly, that Pat called Jenkins a "liar" and Keven refuses to cite a quotation, document his assertion (I am referring to use of the specific word liar and lying). And it is clear Keven is going to make a vendetta out of hounding Pat including with these under-the-belt tactics (of calling Pat a liar when Pat clearly believes his views, and putting horrible words in Pat's mouth that Keven refuses to document) ... unless you or other moderators restrain Keven. I looked up the forum rules. I see "No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member". I see where you are claiming the legitimacy of your prohibition that Pat must not say Jenkins had the gaping wound at the top of the head, at: "A member will not use this board to post any comment or material which is demonstrably false ... inaccurate (as well as defamatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law). Is it "demonstrably false" when Pat says Jenkins had the gaping wound at the top of the head, when you yourself have just now agreed it partly was in the crown which in American English is understood to be "top of the head"? Greg, It is a lie by omission to state that Jenkins said the wound was at the top of the head. Lying by omission is a well known means of deception. The wound was primarily on the back of the head according to Jenkins. BTW, it is against forum rules to call someone a liar. However, if it is proven that member told a lie, you can say that he told a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now