The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Mark Ulrik]

Are we allowed to freely speculate on the moral and mental state of other members now?

If that's the case, I have some suspicions of my own.

[Cliff Varnell]

24 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Are we allowed to freely speculate on the moral and mental state of other members now?

Only in an effort to shield said member from accusations of lying.

[Mark Ulrik]

21 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Only in an effort to shield said member from accusations of lying.

After silencing him first? I wish you were joking.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 minute ago, Mark Ulrik said:

After silencing him first? I wish you were joking.

I didn't silence him.  I protested his silencing.

[Cliff Varnell]

I've been winning debates with Pat Speer for 21 years.  It's fun!

Why would I want him silenced?

[James DiEugenio]

I should ask, how many people have been banned or suspended over this argument?

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

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.

 

And yet the extant autopsy photo shows the gaping wound extending well forward of the midline.

This makes me consider adding to my working hypothesis regarding this as follows (addition beginning with #5):

1. The handlers of the films and the handlers of the autopsy were both tasked with making sure the wounds supported shots from behind.
2. The handlers of the films got Hawkeye Works to move the gaping wound on the Z film from the back of the head to the top.
3. Likewise, the handlers of the autopsy got the autopsists to extend the gaping wound into the top of the head, which they did with illicit pre-autopsy surgery.
4. Problem is, the two teams didn't move the wounds consistent with each other. The autopsists moved the wound to be above and just BEHIND the right ear. In contrast, Hawkeye Works moved the wound on the Z film to be above and FORWARD the right ear.
   
   Doh!
    
5. [New addition to my hypothesis:]  The coverup artists, seeing their little blunder, decided to alter the autopsy photos to extend the surgery-made gaping wound so that it extended further to the front in order that it more closely matched what we see in the Z film. Unlike with the initial tasks, they had plenty of time to do this.

 

[Ron Bulman]

9 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I should ask, how many people have been banned or suspended over this argument?

To my knowledge no one has been banned.  I believe three have had their posting privileges suspended for several days. 

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I don't know how any reasonable person can put their faith in the autopsy photos and x-rays.

 

Denny,

For some reason, anti-alterationists have a strange reverence for films and photograph. For some reason they believe that those are off limits to cover-ups.

I've seen all kinds. Some CTers don't believe that witnesses could have been convinced to lie. Some won't even believe that evidence or testimony got altered!

I'm thinking of one CTer in particular who just spins his wheels day after day trying to figure out how the Warren Commission was innocently fooled by the conspiracy.

And the really odd thing is that these anti-alterationists tend to have a good deal of contempt for those of us who do suspect alteration when it is necessary to explain inconsistencies between evidence and large numbers of corroborating witnesses.

It's very, very odd.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

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.

 

It is, in fact, a forum rule violation to call another member a liar.

However, I see nothing wrong in saying someone lied if he posted a falsehood with the intent of deceiving. In such a case, the incorrect information he posted was both a falsehood and a lie, and any other synonym for lie.

So when it comes to the word "lie," I agree with Keven that it should make no difference what you call it ... it is still a lie.

The word "liar," on the other hand, is completely different, and I am completely in agreement with Ron on that. A liar is someone who lies a lot, right? Well, who is to say how much a person has to lie to be labeled a liar? The only solution to this problem is to avoid the word and its synonyms completely.

Keven, I suggest to you go back and find where you used the word liar, and edit that. As I said, its use violates a forum rule.

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 6/3/2024 at 9:00 AM, 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.

 

Ron,

It's good of you to show compassion for a fellow human being. I hope he deserves it.

As for my handling of this and other Pat Speer threads, It is my job to decide how best to handle it for the sake of other researchers. And that's what I intend to do.

BTW, I don't know how you can tell which of Pat's works are "good" as you put it, and which aren't. Any work can look good if the evidence is controlled as necessary. Which is what Pat sometimes does. For all I know, he might have done it for every single thing he worked on. Or maybe not. We just don't know at this point.

 

[Denny Zartman]

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Denny,

For some reason, anti-alterationists have a strange reverence for films and photograph. For some reason they believe that those are off limits to cover-ups.

I've seen all kinds. Some CTers don't believe that witnesses could have been convinced to lie. Some won't even believe that evidence or testimony got altered!

I'm thinking of one CTer in particular who just spins his wheels day after day trying to figure out how the Warren Commission was innocently fooled by the conspiracy.

And the really odd thing is that these anti-alterationists tend to have a good deal of contempt for those of us who do suspect alteration when it is necessary to explain inconsistencies between evidence and large numbers of corroborating witnesses.

It's very, very odd.

 

It is very strange, I agree. I wish I knew why this is. The conspirators knew that pictures would say a thousand words for a thousand years, and they were right in that the pictures seemingly have the power to convince even some of those who otherwise believe there was a conspiracy.

Jenkins and O'Connor's discussion of the pictures was revealing, and I know that the inconsistencies they highlighted are but a small fraction of the many suspicious details that surround the record.

I spent a lot of time over the weekend re-reading the Warren Commission testimony of the medical personnel at Parkland. I also hunted down as many of the earliest statements from the Parkland doctors and nurses as I could find.

Reading them and relying only on them - I can't understand how anyone can doubt that the large head wound was observed as being either in the back of the head, or being along the right temple and extending into the back. It just seems abundantly clear, from what I've read and heard.

It's a genuine puzzle to me why anyone - especially a conspiracy theorist - would go out of their way to belittle and/or deny what the doctors and nurses at Parkland reportedly observed.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 6/3/2024 at 7:59 PM, James DiEugenio said:

I should ask, how many people have been banned or suspended over this argument?

 

Pat Speer had his posting rights suspended for eight days. It was that long because he lied about James Jenkins, lied about member Keven Hofeling -- multiple times each -- and because he refused to remove the lies after being requested to do so.

Jean Ceulemans had his posting rights suspended for two days. In his case it was being disrespectful toward a forum administrator (me).

Greg Doudna had his posting rights suspended for eight days. In his case it was for telling a series of lies about Keven Hofeling and myself. For example, for saying that we mistreated Pat for merely having a difference of opinion. We did no such thing.

 

[Mark Ulrik]

This thread is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen. I'm just waiting for one of you good folks to suggest that Pat is possessed by the Devil. Or the ghost of Arlen Specter.

Edited June 4 by Mark Ulrik
typo

[James DiEugenio]

For the record, John Stringer denied he took the autopsy photos of the brain to Jeremy Gunn. He did this under oath.

And he denied it on five different grounds of evidence.

As Doug Horne said in JFK Revisited, those photos would not be admitted in a court of law.

We proved why in the film, and it was on even more evidence than just Stringer.

Those are not photos of Kennedy's brain, and it would be provable in a court of law.