The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

 @Greg Doudna @Jean Ceulemans @Pat Speer

 

BTW, these guys won't be posting for a while. Eight days for Greg Doudna, four days for Jean Ceulemans, and 6 days for Pat.

I might remove Pat's penalty early. If I knew for sure that he is delusional, I would right away.

 

[Gerry Down]

The word "lying" implies intent. I have never come across Pat Speer intentionally lying about anything. 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 6/2/2024 at 4:36 PM, Gerry Down said:

The word "lying" implies intent. I have never come across Pat Speer intentionally lying about anything. 

 

Gerry,

Wound witness James Jenkins has always said that the large wound on Kennedy's head was at the back of the head. Yet Pat insists that Jenkins places the wound at the top of the head.

When Keven showed Pat a transcript of James Jenkins placing the wound on the back of the head, Pat wouldn't even acknowledge it. Pat just continued to say that Jenkins places the wound on the top of the head. When Keven asked Pat to produce a single document or video of Jenkins placing the wound on top, he couldn't. He couldn't because Jenkins has never said that.

We know form that experience that Pat is 1) lying, and 2) is doing so with intent.*

Furthermore, Keven showed above that Pat has been lying about James Jenkins on this forum for over a decade.

And a couple months ago Keven proved that Pat lied about Dr. Robert McClelland.

I'm betting there is a lot more to come.

 

*Though, as member Cliff Varnell has indicated, it is possible that Pat is delusional. In which case he isn't aware of his lying.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

BTW, these guys won't be posting for a while. Eight days for Greg Doudna, four days for Jean Ceulemans, and 6 days for Pat.

I might remove Pat's penalty early. If I knew for sure that he is delusional, I would right away.

 

Free the Ed Forum 3!

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm betting there is a lot more to come.

There is a thread about McClelland, a thread about Jenkins, and I could start a thread about the Speer smear of SSA Glen Bennett.

I have such confidence in my argument I don't have to indulge ad hominem.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

*Though, as member Cliff Varnell has indicated, it is possible that Pat is delusional. In which case he isn't aware of is lying.

 

Pat has insisted the top of JFK's back was 4 inches below his clothing collars. 

Confirmation bias is a bitch, ain't it?

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Free the Ed Forum 3!

 

I feel a mutiny coming on.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Pat has insisted the top of JFK's back was 4 inches below his clothing collars. 

 

LOL

 

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Confirmation bias is a bitch, ain't it?

 

I take it that Pat thinks the autopsists got the back wound location right. That figures. He thinks the autopsists got the gaping head wound location right too.

 

[Mark Knight]

On 5/30/2024 at 9:50 PM, Keven Hofeling said:

Can't you read, Mr. Doudna? And why are you again attempting to answer my questions with yet more questions?

The following is what you have apparently missed somehow...

You've done your confederate, Pat Speer, a great disservice by calling for examples of Speer maligning James Jenkins. Speer has been doing so for over a decade, and I am in the process of going through ALL of those posts, and that is going to take some time.

Compare this with how Speer is conducting himself. Sandy Larsen and I have asked him to produce just ONE example of what Speer has characterized as the "NUMEROUS TIMES" that James Jenkins has supposedly said that he saw "a hole in the top of the head" at the beginning of the autopsy, and Speer has not been able to come up with even ONE.

So while I am cataloguing all the instances that Mr. Speer has accused James Jenkins of being a liar, and other such things, I think it falls upon YOU to come up with just ONE example of what Speer has characterized as the "NUMEROUS TIMES" that James Jenkins has supposedly said that he saw "a hole in the top of the head" at the beginning of the autopsy.

As you have imposed upon me such a monumental task, I also impose upon you the task of coming up with just ONE example of what Speer has characterized as the "NUMEROUS TIMES" that James Jenkins has supposedly said that he saw "a hole in the top of the head" at the beginning of the autopsy.

If you are going to designate yourself as the defender of Pat Speer's lies this way, I think it is the least you can do.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537022

 

Mr. Hofeling, 

Since you are approaching this "discussion" as a "prosecution" of Mr. Speer, I must remind you that the burden of proof in an American court [no, this isn't a court, but I use the court as an example] is on the PROSECUTION, and not on the defense.

So can you PROVE that Mr. Speer actually used the word "liar" in reference to James Jenkins? To this point, I apparently have missed where you have posted that exact, direct quote.  One can say that another person's story has changed over the years and still not call them a liar. Memories fade, people don't express themselves well, people also sometimes are simply mistaken at one point or another in their lives.

 

Greg Doudna and I often disagree on the Forum. But I agree with Greg that when you accuse one party of calling someone a liar, it is incumbent upon you, as the accuser, to present evidence that the person you are accusing did what you have accused them of doing...that of calling someone a liar. Unless someone actually uses the word "liar," then you haven't proved your point.

And it is NOT the responsibility of anyone, including the person you accused, to prove they didn't do what you claim they did.  

If someone points to the upper back part of the head, at what specific point -- how many millimeters from what particular point of reference -- does the upper part of the head become NOT a part of the top of the head? At what point on the skull does the "top of the head" begin and end? Yes, I'm asking for specificity in your response.

Otherwise, is the top HALF of the head still the "top of the head"? Or is it the top 25% of the head? Or only the top 2% of the head? If you cannot define your term with any degree of specificity, then perhaps Mr. Speer's interpretation of the term "top of the head" is slightly less specific than yours, which, to this point, seems quite subject to interpretation. Poorly defined terms do not make one a liar. They simply reflect someone's perhaps-less-than-perfect interpretation of the evidence.

So exactly where does "top of the head" begin and end, in relation to a specific point of reference on the head? If you cannot state your parameters with precision, then you cannot determine what is a lie and what is merely a difference in interpretation. So how many millimeters from what point does "top of the head" begin and end?

Mr. Speer is still designated a moderator of The Education Forum, but he has chosen NOT to exercise that function since the ownership change 10 years ago. Mr. Speer was not lying when he said that he has not exercised that function since the ownership change. I have opted not to seek removal of that moderator designation because, by not using it, Mr. Speer shows no evidence of abusing it...and allowing him to keep the designation is benign and has done no harm to anyone.

As an administrator of The Education Forum, I can't wait for you to direct Sandy Larson to suspend my posting priviliges or to ban me from the forum, simply for questioning your techniques when dealing with Mr. Speer. As of 6/2/2024, I am the last remaining administrator from the transfer of ownership of The Education Forum from John Simkin to the group of four new owners they selected in 2014. It seems I am the "last man standing" of that group of four post-Simkin owners unless James Gordon decides to return. Absent that return, I am the senior "owner" of the forum.

Mr. Hofeling, I eagerly await your anticipated attempts to have me suspended or even banned from the forum [This is gonna be a hoot!].

When I'm suspended, maybe DVP can go by his former business and pick up a bucket [extra crispy, please, David!] and deliver it to me. I'm 25 miles west of Louisville, David...the same latitude as the first turn at Churchill Downs, and the same longitude as the exit of pit road at Talladega Speedway. I'll supply the drinks as long as you drink decaf cola.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

LOL

 

 

I take it that Pat thinks the autopsists got the back wound location right. That figures. He thinks the autopsists got the gaping head wound location right too.

 

Pat insists medical evidence with multiple violations of autopsy protocol are superior to medical evidence prepared according to autopsy protocol.

The autopsy evidence prepared according to proper protocol is consistent with the physical evidence (clothing holes) and the contemporaneous written notes of a half dozen witnesses in position of authority.

Improperly prepared medical evidence ain't.

 

Edited June 3 by Cliff Varnell

[Denny Zartman]

I don't know how any reasonable person can put their faith in the autopsy photos and x-rays. How many red flags need to go up before one approaches them with skepticism? Personally, I'd only find them of use as evidence of conspiracy and fraud, and not as anything even remotely useful in determining the truth of what really happened that day.

The William Law book "In The Eye Of History" has a DVD supplement that doesn't seem to be online as far as I know. It's a discussion called The Gathering. In part of it, Jim Jenkins and Paul O'Connor use a laser pointer and a projected image to talk about some of the autopsy photos. One of them was the top of the head image Pat posted recently. Jenkins and O'Connor both pointed at the top of the head and indicated that the photo did not reflect what they remembered seeing at the autopsy. Jenkins said that the wound he saw did not cross the midline.

Jenkins and O'Connor also said they had a chock block for use under the necks of corpses in the morgue. Part of a chock block is visible in one of the photos. This is a clear contrast to other photos, which show a different metal support device being used under JFK's head - a support device that Jenkins and O'Connor say the Bethesda morgue simply didn't have.

There are other details in the photos that Jenkins and O'Connor say are incongruous with the Bethesda morgue. And honestly, in my opinion, some of those shadows do appear suspicious, at least to my eyes.

[Mark Knight]

On 5/31/2024 at 11:09 AM, Pat Speer said:

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. 

I placed Pat Speer's apology in bold.

So I have no idea why his posting privileges are still suspended.

 

 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

Now I can see that you think you are on a roll with your new armchair lay-lawyer gig, but I have to tell you that your personal regard for the word "liar" carries no weight with me. I don't know what they taught you about that particular word in divinity school, but I can assure you, that in all other branches of education, it is just a word, and is no more serious nor severe than its synonyms.

I beg to differ on this Keven.  The word does carry weight.  In the academic world I participated in for many years I don't ever remember one of them calling another a liar.  It's an insulting and provocative term.  They presented their arguments in a more convivial way.  Calling someone a liar has resulted in greater consequences in years gone by.  A bloody nose on a playground, a bar fight, a shootout in the wild wild west.  It's still a powerful word.  

[Ron Ege]

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Gerry,

Wound witness James Jenkins has always said that the large wound on Kennedy's head was at the back of the head. Yet Pat insists that Jenkins places the wound at the top of the head.

When Keven showed Pat a transcript of James Jenkins placing the wound on the back of the head, Pat wouldn't even acknowledge it. Pat just continued to say that Jenkins places the wound on the top of the head. When Keven asked Pat to produce a single document or video of Jenkins placing the wound on top, he couldn't. He couldn't because Jenkins has never said that.

We know form that experience that Pat is 1) lying, and 2) is doing so with intent.*

Furthermore, Keven showed above that Pat has been lying about James Jenkins on this forum for over a decade.

And a couple months ago Keven proved that Pat lied about Dr. Robert McClelland.

I'm betting there is a lot more to come.

 

*Though, as member Cliff Varnell has indicated, it is possible that Pat is delusional. In which case he isn't aware of is lying.

 

Sandy.

I agree that we cannot not know if any delusion is involved - especially, that appearing to be going back over several or more years.  And Pat has done a some really good work over those years - so, based on the history of this thread, it is a very puzzling scenario.

I did read that Pat is dealing with cancer, and of course, we cannot know his medical history, but medications can play havoc with one's brain.  And we cannot know his medications' history.  That said, I am discombobulated regarding the "good work" over the years - in comparison with the subject of this thread.

There are brain diseases that develop over some 10 years or more before others notice that anything is amiss in the behavior of one so affected.  

Still, the "good work" has been there over the same many years.  Why then, apparently, "off the rails" on this subject?  Much perplexing, in the least.

'Tis more than a shame that we are where we are - especially for Pat.  One cannot probably come close to imagining the quite possible challenging angst that he might be suffering.

[Keven Hofeling]

9 hours ago, Ron Ege said:

Sandy.

I agree that we cannot not know if any delusion is involved - especially, that appearing to be going back over several or more years.  And Pat has done a some really good work over those years - so, based on the history of this thread, it is a very puzzling scenario.

I did read that Pat is dealing with cancer, and of course, we cannot know his medical history, but medications can play havoc with one's brain.  And we cannot know his medications' history.  That said, I am discombobulated regarding the "good work" over the years - in comparison with the subject of this thread.

There are brain diseases that develop over some 10 years or more before others notice that anything is amiss in the behavior of one so affected.  

Still, the "good work" has been there over the same many years.  Why then, apparently, "off the rails" on this subject?  Much perplexing, in the least.

'Tis more than a shame that we are where we are - especially for Pat.  One cannot probably come close to imagining the quite possible challenging angst that he might be suffering.

I certainly feel compassion for Mr. Speer and his battle with cancer, and it is of course a possibility that his medications and treatment play some role in this, but in the thick and thin of confronting him with blatant contradictions between the factual record concerning the JFK assassination -- most particularly JFK's large occipital-parietal head wound, and the witnesses that reported it -- Speer's posture comes off as being one of a great deal of hubris and stubbornness, which is compounded by something that seems suggestive -- at least it does to me -- of what appears to be something along the lines of a martyr complex or a messiah complex.

I don't expect anybody to blindly accept that based upon my say so alone, or for that matter anything that I say about the JFK assassination and associated witnesses and researchers, just as I do not accept anything that anybody else says based on their say so alone. I present evidence in support of my claims, and I assess the claims of others based upon the substantiating evidence that they present, and it has been this that has been the basis of the conflict between Mr. Speer and I. But I will say this for Mr. Speer, he has done an enormous amount of work on his website, and I have learned numerous things from the research that he has done. I have no desire to shut him up or to have him banished from this or any other platform, but I do want the countervailing evidence to his positions to be available to other researchers, particularly those who are new and struggling to obtain an accurate understanding of the factual record. I am at my core a believer in free speech, and believe that the remedy to inaccurate speech and information is more speech and accurate information.

I mentioned above "a martyr complex or a messiah complex" because of Speer's repeated assertions that the dirty rotten "alterationists" are conspiring to have him banished from the research community, a narrative he uses as a blunt force instrument in an apparent effort to discredit his adversaries, and to deflect attention from his misrepresentations of the factual record. In the remainder of this post I am going to present evidence of a recent example in which Speer made such an attempt to do exactly that, as well as to demonstrate my response, which was to present evidence from the factual record calculated to expose exactly what Mr. Speer is actually doing.

When, on May 5, 2024, Sandy Larsen -- another truth-teller who has diligently opposed Mr. Speer's misrepresentations about the medical evidence for many years --noted that he had seen me present evidence directly proving Speer wrong just to see Speer double down on the position that had just been proven wrong, Mr. Speer responded by flat out denying, without presenting any evidence whatsoever, that this was true, and went on to attack Sandy as one less knowledgeable than himself who is bent on having Speer banished because Speer dares to disagree with his "whimsical and fantastical conclusions regarding a supposedly serious matter," as follows:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30407-favorite-author-jim-dieugenio-favorite-researcher-pat-speer/?do=findComment&comment=535234

The same day, I responded to Mr. Speer's post as follows:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30407-favorite-author-jim-dieugenio-favorite-researcher-pat-speer/?do=findComment&comment=535245

"Mr. Speer: Is the problem you complain of that there is a massive, coordinated conspiracy against you, or that you are being consistently called out on your factual misrepresentations and mythmaking?

The post of yours to which this is a response is a prime example: You cite John Simkin as somebody who allegedly embraced a non-confrontational spirit, and yet the truth is that John Simkin consistently confronted forum members about their factual misrepresentations (if you wish to dispute this fact, I will be happy to present you with a long list of examples).

To determine whether you are such a diplomat who has been so abused by JFK "buffs," as you seem to be implying, let us review the history to determine whether the problem is instead that you constantly attempt to feed your fellow researchers blatantly false factual misrepresentations calculated to mislead us as if you think we are too stupid to fact check your claims.

The following are just a few examples of your very recent blatant factual misrepresentations, which are not just mere matters of differences of interpretation, but are instead glaring distortions of the factual record:

________________

On April 25, 2024, Speer claimed that (1) mortician Tom Robinson claimed in his HSCA testimony that he "saw a small wound that was not a bullet hole by [JFK's] temple," (2) that nineteen years later, before the ARRB, Robinson was no longer referencing the right temple wound, and testified instead "I think I saw two or three tiny wounds by [JFK's] right cheek," and (3) that fourteen years after that Doug Horne, without any actual reference to Tom Robinson's testimony at all claimed that "Robinson said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye."  https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30374-incision-made-on-jfks-head-kennedy-assassination-nothing-to-see-here-an-incision-made-on-jfks-head/?do=findComment&comment=534508

Later on April 25, 2024, (1) I presented Speer with the HSCA transcript of Tom Robinsen's demonstrating that Robinson had said the right temple wound had been caused either "a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet," (2) I also presented Speer with the ARRB transcript demonstrating that Robinson in his 1996 ARRB testimony ALSO specifically described the right temple wound separately from the shrapnel punctures in the cheek and executed two drawings of that right temple wound, and (3) I pointed out that Doug Horne was basing his high forehead statement on Robinson's 1/12/1977 HSCA transcript showing that when Robinson was asked by HSCA attorney Andy Purdy whether the wound was "in the forehead region up near the hairline," Robinson replied in the affirmative, "yes," and that, as can be seen in Robinson's marking of the right temple wound in the skull diagram below, Speer's claim, made in an adjoining post, that the wound was below JFK's eye is also categorically false.  https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30374-incision-made-on-jfks-head-kennedy-assassination-nothing-to-see-here-an-incision-made-on-jfks-head/?do=findComment&comment=534511

________________

On April 20, 2024, Speer again recited his myth about HSCA autopsy technician James Jenkins allegedly denying the existence of the large avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head that Jenkins had described to the HSCA in 1977, and to David Lifton in 1979. Speer wrote:

"...Jenkins said the back of the head between the ears was shattered but still intact beneath the scalp in filmed interviews with Harrison Livingstone and William Law, and then again at two different JFK Lancer conferences which I attended. At the first of these, there was a breakout session with about 30 people in attendance in which he was repeatedly grilled by Aguilar and Mantik about the back of the head, and told them repeatedly that it was shattered but intact beneath the scalp. Of course Mantik turned around and told this to Doug Horne and within days Horne had an article online in which he claimed Jenkins had told this audience that the autopsy photos are inaccurate and Horne then twisted this into Jenkins' claiming the back of the head was blown out--when he had actually said the exact opposite..." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534135

In telling this myth, what Speer did not realize is that there is a transcript of James Jenkins's 2013 Lancer Conference presentation that was independently prepared by someone who has nothing to do with David Mantik and Doug Horne which was posted on the Education Forum demonstrating that, contrary to Speer's claim, what Jenkins actually said at the conference was the following:

"...there was a small entry…..exit, anyway a small wound that appeared to be approximately four….right in front of the top of the right ear and slightly above it...."

"...At the conclusion of the autopsy my personal ideas of the things that I said, I was sure that the entrance wound was above the right ear and that the large wound in the back (of the head) was an exit wound.  In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr. Boswell to the gallery...."  https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534146

Best demonstrating the ridiculousness of Speer's slanderous mythology about James Jenkins is the following drawing of the occipital parietal wound Jenkins executed for the HSCA in 1977 (corroborating his HSCA testimony), and the excerpt of Jenkins's 1979 interview by Dvid Lifton which follows it:

________________

On March 12, 2024, Speer regurgitated his myth about Parkland Nurse Audrey Bell (that Bell suddenly inserted herself as a witness into JFK assassination history starting in the 1980's after being groomed by JFK conspiracy advocates, and had never before claimed there was a large avulsive head wound, diplomatically characterizing her account as "bullshit"), as follows:

"...There are some major problems with Horne's response. 1. He cites Audrey Bell as a credible witness, when she is not. She never mentioned anything about the head wound till decades after the shooting, after she had been embraced by the research community as a truth-teller..."  https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30250-doug-hornes-response-to-gary-aguilars-review/?do=findComment&comment=530774

My response, on the same date -- https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30250-doug-hornes-response-to-gary-aguilars-review/?do=findComment&comment=530820 -- was to remind Speer of the existence of an item of evidence that had many times been pointed out to him by others on this forum which completely demolishes his claim about Nurse Bell. A November 1967 paper authored by Bell herself, published in the journal of the Association of periOperative Registered Nurses, titled Forty-Eight Hours and Thirty-One Minutes, that contains references to events supporting the representations Bell would make in the 1980's, such as referencing her proximity to Dr. Perry and the performance of the tracheotomy, and "the massive head wound":   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001209208700474

"...I helped cut the President's shirt from his right arm, and positioned the tracheotomy tray for Dr. Perry.

It was then that I saw the massive head wound. Even though the prospect of surgery-after viewing the proportions of the wound and the general condition of the President-was improbable, I rushed off in search of a telephone to call the Operating Room...."

________________

On January 21, 2024, Speer made the following blatantly false factual misrepresentations about Bethesda X-ray Technician Jerrol Custer:

"Custer said that he would have to have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P x-ray. And that he couldn't and wouldn't have done that if the back of his head was missing. Keep in mind that the x-rays were taken with the brain still in the skull. He wasn't about to take an x-ray where the brain would be smushed onto the cassette." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526563

My response was as follows:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526695

Mr. Speer, I regret to inform you that I must once again point out your misrepresentation of testimony to the members of this forum. You claimed that Jerrol Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P X-ray if the back of his head was missing. This is, according to you, because the x-rays were taken with the brain still in the skull, so he wouldn't have taken such an x-ray as the brain would be "smushed onto the cassette" if he had done so. 

Below, I demonstrate your misrepresentations:

As you can see in the first segment of Custer's deposition testimony I have highlighted in bright yellow, Custer testified that he didn't even see the stirrup at the autopsy, and that the stirrup was not used during x-rays, but only when the body was being probed.

With regard to your claim that Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P X-ray, in the second segment I have highlighted in light yellow we see that Custer placed a sheet over the film to collect any bodily fluids that might drain while he was taking the x-rays.

In the third pink-highlighted segment, when Jeremy Gunn questioned him about Autopsy Photos 42 and 43, Jerrol Custer confirmed that he had x-rayed the back of JFK's head and mentioned lifting the head just enough "to place the cassette underneath."

Furthermore, contrary to your claim that Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette because the x-rays were taken while the brain was in the skull, so he wouldn't have taken such an x-ray as the brain would be "smushed onto the cassette" if he had done so, Custer consistently maintained throughout his deposition that there was no brain in the skull when he took the x-rays. Note that on page 89 of the deposition Custer states that the brain was missing from the skull at the time he took the initial set of x-rays, and indicates that he did not witness what was surely a pre-autopsy clandestine craniotomy:

Finally, despite the impression you gave of Jerrol Custer's ARRB deposition as uneventful and uncontroversial, the truth is that Custer recalled highly controversial and explosive events, including:

He mentioned seeing a mechanical device in the skull at the start of the autopsy; being told the body was at Walter Reed before being brought to Bethesda; witnessing Commander William Pitzer filming the autopsy; seeing more than one casket in the morgue; witnessing the Kennedy entourage arriving after the body had already been at Bethesda for over an hour; seeing interference with the autopsy from a four-star General and a plainclothesman in the gallery; and, many indications that Kennedy had been shot from the front.

In the deposition, Custer's memories seem to overlap, such as when, as follows, he relates his memories of the mechanical device in JFK's skull, being told by two separate duty officers that JFK's body had been at the Walter Reed compound before arriving at Bethesda, and recalling having seen Commander William Pitzer filming the autopsy:

 

And after a couple of attempts to get Speer to respond to the refutations I had made regarding his claims about Jerrol Custer with something more on point than a cut and paste job from his website, Speer responded by accusing me of being a "stalker":

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526705

 ________________

As for Speer's defamatory misrepresentations about Dr. Robert McClelland; they are so numerous and malicious that I had to devote an entire thread to them which spanned 20 pages and had 285 replies:

 

Edited June 4 by Keven Hofeling

[Ken Davies]

19 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

Mr. Hofeling, 

Since you are approaching this "discussion" as a "prosecution" of Mr. Speer, I must remind you that the burden of proof in an American court [no, this isn't a court, but I use the court as an example] is on the PROSECUTION, and not on the defense.

So can you PROVE that Mr. Speer actually used the word "liar" in reference to James Jenkins? To this point, I apparently have missed where you have posted that exact, direct quote.  One can say that another person's story has changed over the years and still not call them a liar. Memories fade, people don't express themselves well, people also sometimes are simply mistaken at one point or another in their lives.

 

Greg Doudna and I often disagree on the Forum. But I agree with Greg that when you accuse one party of calling someone a liar, it is incumbent upon you, as the accuser, to present evidence that the person you are accusing did what you have accused them of doing...that of calling someone a liar. Unless someone actually uses the word "liar," then you haven't proved your point.

And it is NOT the responsibility of anyone, including the person you accused, to prove they didn't do what you claim they did.  

If someone points to the upper back part of the head, at what specific point -- how many millimeters from what particular point of reference -- does the upper part of the head become NOT a part of the top of the head? At what point on the skull does the "top of the head" begin and end? Yes, I'm asking for specificity in your response.

Otherwise, is the top HALF of the head still the "top of the head"? Or is it the top 25% of the head? Or only the top 2% of the head? If you cannot define your term with any degree of specificity, then perhaps Mr. Speer's interpretation of the term "top of the head" is slightly less specific than yours, which, to this point, seems quite subject to interpretation. Poorly defined terms do not make one a liar. They simply reflect someone's perhaps-less-than-perfect interpretation of the evidence.

So exactly where does "top of the head" begin and end, in relation to a specific point of reference on the head? If you cannot state your parameters with precision, then you cannot determine what is a lie and what is merely a difference in interpretation. So how many millimeters from what point does "top of the head" begin and end?

Mr. Speer is still designated a moderator of The Education Forum, but he has chosen NOT to exercise that function since the ownership change 10 years ago. Mr. Speer was not lying when he said that he has not exercised that function since the ownership change. I have opted not to seek removal of that moderator designation because, by not using it, Mr. Speer shows no evidence of abusing it...and allowing him to keep the designation is benign and has done no harm to anyone.

As an administrator of The Education Forum, I can't wait for you to direct Sandy Larson to suspend my posting priviliges or to ban me from the forum, simply for questioning your techniques when dealing with Mr. Speer. As of 6/2/2024, I am the last remaining administrator from the transfer of ownership of The Education Forum from John Simkin to the group of four new owners they selected in 2014. It seems I am the "last man standing" of that group of four post-Simkin owners unless James Gordon decides to return. Absent that return, I am the senior "owner" of the forum.

Mr. Hofeling, I eagerly await your anticipated attempts to have me suspended or even banned from the forum [This is gonna be a hoot!].

When I'm suspended, maybe DVP can go by his former business and pick up a bucket [extra crispy, please, David!] and deliver it to me. I'm 25 miles west of Louisville, David...the same latitude as the first turn at Churchill Downs, and the same longitude as the exit of pit road at Talladega Speedway. I'll supply the drinks as long as you drink decaf cola.

 

Thank you Mr.  Knight.