The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Pat Speer]

At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018):

(Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in the morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell perforrmed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning."

[Keven Hofeling]

39 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

People are just exploiting inconsistencies in memories and pretending these people saw two different things. It would be like your mom's friend saying she thought her bridesmaid's dress was a different color than it is in your mom's wedding photos, and you concluding that your mom must have gotten married twice.

To my understanding, Horne et al, claim 1) Brugioni saw the original unaltered Z-film, and 2) this film was altered to add a large wound to the top of the head.

But if memory serves, Brugioni said the film he saw had an explosion from the top of the head. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwldcYcAv4 

"The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration" by Douglas P. Horne

https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

Next to the Zapruder film chapter in Volume IV of Doug Horne's book, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, I think that the online essay linked above is the best and most comprehensive tutorial on the Zapruder film, and the evidence indicating that the camera-original Zapruder film was altered that exists.

From the available testimony of CIA NPIC officials Homer McMahon and Dino Brugioni, it would appear that Hawkeyeworks in Rochester, New Your, was a highly classified joint CIA/Kodak film lab that was, in addition to NPIC, in possession of the camera-original Zapruder film on the weekend of the assassination, and all but a few documents from the second briefing board session at NPIC remain classified. I don't know why this would still be the case after all of these years other than that something highly nefarious took place, namely, alteration of the Zapruder film. When Homer McMahon was interviewed by the ARRB in 1996, and divulged the name of the facility, "Hawkeyeworks," the CIA immediately informed the ARRB that even the name of the facility itself was classified. The following is a memo from Doug Horne memorializing that communication:

The Hawkeyeworks history that all bona fide JFKA researchers should be interested in, and that you should also be curious about, is the still classified history involving the Zapruder film that the CIA refuses to release to Doug Horne:

Doug Horne wrote:

"...“Hawkeyeworks” Explained:

After the Homer McMahon interview was released in 1998, JFK researchers loyal to the concept of an authentic Zapruder film that is “ground truth” in the Kennedy assassination downplayed the importance of the “Hawkeyeworks” story, either doubting its existence because there was no documentary proof, or alternately saying that the “Hawkeyeworks” lab was solely dedicated to U-2 and Corona satellite photography. But these critics were wrong on both counts.

First, Dino Brugioni, during his 2009 and 2011 interviews with Peter Janney and me, not only confirmed the existence of the state-of-the-art Kodak lab in Rochester used by the CIA for various classified purposes, but confirmed that he visited the place more than once, including once prior to the JFK assassination. (He also confirmed its existence in his recent book, Eyes in the Sky, on page 364.) Second, Dino Brugioni made clear to me, when I interviewed him in July of 2011, that the “Hawkeye Plant” (as he called it) was an enormous state-of-the-art private sector laboratory founded and run by Kodak, which performed far more tasks than “just” Corona satellite and U-2 “special order” film services. He said that the Hawkeye Plant was involved in developing new film products and in manufacturing and testing special film products of all kinds, including new motion picture films, and that it definitely had the capability to process motion pictures. He did not see such equipment himself, but was told by Ed Green, a high-ranking Kodak manager at “Hawkeyeworks” with whom he had a relationship of trust, that the “Hawkeye Plant” could, and did, definitely process motion pictures. When repeatedly questioned about this capability by Peter Janney throughout the 2009 interviews, Brugioni said with great reverence, on several occasions, “They could do anything.”[21]

The CIA refused to provide me with any information about “Hawkeyeworks” when the Agency finally responded to my September 12, 2009 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on February 7, 2011. But that was hardly surprising, since over one year earlier, on January 27, 2010, the CIA wrote to me, cautioning: “The CIA Information Act, 50 U.S.C. Section 431, as amended, exempts CIA operational files from the search, review, publication, and disclosure requirements of the FOIA.” What this meant, in rather blunt language, was that if the CIA was running an “op,” such as the alteration of the Zapruder film immediately after JFK’s assassination, then they didn’t have to search for those records or tell me about it, in any way. So the failure by the CIA to answer any of my many questions about “Hawkeyeworks” means literally—nothing.

The plain facts are these:

(1) the 8 mm (already slit!) camera-original Zapruder film was delivered to NPIC late on Saturday evening, 11/23/63, and the two Secret Service officials who brought it to NPIC for the making of briefing boards left with the film at about 3 AM Sunday morning; and (2) a 16 mm, unslit version of the Zapruder film was returned to NPIC the next night, after dark, on Sunday evening, 11/24/63; and its courier (“Bill Smith”) said it had been processed at “Hawkeyeworks,” and that he had brought it directly to NPIC in Washington, D.C. from Rochester (using the unmistakable code word “Hawkeyeworks”) himself.

“Double 8” home movies which have already been slit at the processing facility do not miraculously “reassemble” themselves from two 25-foot strips 8 mm in width, and connected with a splice in the middle, into 16 mm wide unslit double 8 films. A new Zapruder film was clearly created at “Hawkeyeworks” in Rochester, in an optical printer. Bill Smith told the truth when he said the film he carried had been developed there at “Hawkeyeworks;” he lied when he said that it was the camera-original film taken by the photographer in Dallas.

If “Hawkeyeworks” truly had the physical capability “to do anything,” as Ed Green informed Dino Brugioni, then all that would have been required that weekend would have been to bring in some experienced personnel—an animator or two, and a visual effects director—experienced in the “black arts” of Hollywood. Those personnel, if not already on-site, employed at “Hawkeyeworks,” could have been brought into Rochester on Saturday, November 23rd, the same day the JFK autopsy photographs were being developed in Washington, D.C. at Naval Photographic Center, Anacostia. The JFK autopsy photos developed on Saturday (per Robert Knudsen’s 1978 HSCA deposition transcript) would have provided the guide for the image alteration necessary on the Zapruder film the next day, on Sunday. The JFK autopsy photos document the massive head wound created by clandestine, post mortem surgery on JFK’s head wounds at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and would have provided a rough guide for the massive head wound in the top and right side of the skull that had to be painted onto selected Zapruder film frames the next day, on Sunday. No such parietal-temporal-frontal wound was seen at Parkland Hospital in Dallas by any of the treatment staff the day Kennedy was shot and treated there, but it had to be added to selected Zapruder film frames, to match the illicit post mortem cranial surgery at Bethesda that was being misrepresented in the autopsy photos as “damage from the assassin’s bullet.”[22] In addition to painting on a false wound, of course, the forgers at “Hawkeyeworks” would have had to obscure—black out—the real exit wound, in the right rear of JFK’s head, that was seen in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital. (More on this below.)..."

http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

____________

Doug Horne wrote:

"...NPIC EVENT # 2 (Presided over by Homer McMahon)

As stated earlier, as a member of the ARRB staff, I interviewed Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter three times each between June and August of 1997.[18]  A written call report was produced following each interview; additionally, the second of three Homer McMahon interviews—on July 14, 1997—was tape recorded, and that recording may be obtained from the National Archives, along with all of the written interview reports.  In May of 2012, I completed a verbatim transcript of the audiotaped interview with Mr. McMahon on July 14, 1997. The summary below recapitulates the totality of the information provided by McMahon and Hunter over the course of all of their interviews in the summer of 1997.

Time and date:  The strong and final consensus of opinion between the two men was that the NPIC event they participated in took place “about two days after” JFK’s assassination, and “before the funeral.”  [The funeral was Monday afternoon, November 25th.]  They both agreed that their NPIC activity took place before the funeral of the 35th President.  McMahon initially recalled the event as taking place 1 or 2 days after the assassination, and Hunter initially recalled it as taking place 2 or 3 days after the assassination; but both men consistently agreed that their NPIC activity definitely occurred prior to President Kennedy’s funeral.  The work commenced after dark, and lasted all night long.  [Note: The home movie of the assassination brought to NPIC for McMahon and Hunter to work with was not copied as a motion picture; nor did NPIC even have the capability to do so.]..."
https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/
-------------------------------------------------------------

EXCERPTS FROM HOMER MCMAHON INTERVIEW REGARDING THE ZAPRUDER FILM BEING AT HAWKEYEWORKS IN ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 

Homer A. McMahon (Former CIA/NPIC Employee) conducted on July 14, 1997 at Archives II in College Park, Maryland.  Interviewers: Douglas P. Horne and T. Jeremy Gunn  

 

 "...McMahon (9:55): OK. But the best that I remember, of how I came to work on this project---and, of course, we all heard of, of, you know, that motorcade, where Kennedy got killed, and I think we shut up shop and went home---af---after that. And it was within the next two days, a chap was introduced to me---and I was sworn to his secrecy, it had nothing to do with the Agency’s secrecy and, and he was, to the best of my knowledge, introduced as “Bill Smith.” - 4 - 

 

Horne: “Bill Smith” of---what? 

 

McMahon: Of [the] Secret Service, he was an agent. And he had, he had gotten a roll of film directly from the person that had photographed it, who called the Secret Service and told them that he thought he had that on film---and he shot it with a little ‘Brownie,’ ah, double 8 [camera]. And he took it, took it to Rochester, and---we had a division up there, I won’t go into that--- but they processed the film---it was Ek---it was Kodachrome (I think, I or II, the daylight version, whichever it was), and it was double 8 [film]. And, after he got it processed, they told him there that we were probably the only place that had the equipment that could do what he wanted to, ah, take every frame on there--- [chuckling]---of the entire event, and, and make, ah, the best possible quality reproduction. 

 

Horne: When you say, “They told him,” who do you mean, ah---? 

 

McMahon (12:04): Well---ah---heh, heh---well, Eastman Kodak had, had contracts with the U.S. government, and if you want to know, you can go through the CIA, they’ll tell you [unclear]. OK, but he, he got the film processed, and he brought it to us, and he, and three other people, ah, timed the film, for the---through observation you could tell where the gunshots actually caused the hits and the slumps. We didn’t know anything about any audio---ah, it was just visual. And we timed it and determined, where the, the time between the, ah---physically timed it, with a stopwatch---ah, where the gunshot “hits” hit. And we, we, we, we went from, I think, maybe two 7 frames before the first hit, and then we hit every single frame--- through, and we only, he only counted three hits, possibly four--- ah, couldn’t tell, I think, when, when Connally got hit. It was obvious when, when he [JFK] got hit the first time, and then the second time, as his head [was] going off into the angle, up, and---..."

 

"... Horne: That’s all we are trying to do, for the record, is to clarify that when you said that statement, were you referring to this particular film, or other jobs? 

 

McMahon: OK, I---this---I had---I had other clearances; ah, but, but none of these clearances that were given to me under the CIA or other clearances that I held for other government agencies, this was under strictly, a---I was told that none of this could be divulged to anyone (that we had it, that we did it), and I know that it was being used for a briefing, but I don’t know who they briefed on it. My only guess---[was] that we normally briefed the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the National Reconnaissance Committee; and the President of the United States, from the work that I did. And I didn’t do any of the analysis; I just did the color part that was used in the briefing boards and the teleprompters and that kind of work. And it was also distributed under different Top Secret classifications, to the Community, go ahead---..."

 

 "...Horne (18:19): OK. Would you allow me to, ah, test your recollection on something, the firmness of it? Ah, you, you said a moment ago that you thought this was, ah, within two days of the assassination. Ah, is there any particular reason why you associate it as being that close to the assassination, any particular other events, or--- 

 

McMahon: I think, I think I was told---that this---to get the film from the individual; take it and get it processed; come back---was, was, a couple of days---I’m not sure. I’m not---I don’t know [if I can] recall that. 

 

Horne: Do you recall whether this work that you did was before the funeral, or after the funeral, of the President? 

 

[Transcriber’s note: President Kennedy was assassinated on Friday, November 22nd, 1963; and his funeral was on Monday, November 25th, 1963.] 

 

McMahon (18:56): I’m pretty sure it was before...."  

 

"...Horne (28:23): How certain are you that Mr. Smith said he went down to pick up the film from the person who took it, and then took it to Rochester? Are you--- 

 

McMahon: I know he took it to Rochester. I’m not certain other than I think he said that---that it--- that he got it from the original person himself, but I’m not positive. I, I am positive that he said that he took it to Rochester---hand-carried it, got it processed, and then they guided him back to us to do the--- 

 

Horne: So--- 

 

McMahon: Rochester wasn’t set up to do what we were set up to do. 

 

Horne: In the sense that you had the big enlarger and they did not? Is that what--- 

 

McMahon: We had a complete ‘world beyond’ facility--- 

 

Horne: OK

 

Horne (42:08): Before we move along, and before I show you the notes that the Archives has---ah, let, let me revisit with you, ah, what exactly did Mr. Smith say in regard to secrecy or nondisclosure, ah, regarding this event, can you tell me that story again? 

 

McMahon: I know that, that my immediate supervisor was not allowed in the room---that it was so sensitive, and he had all the tickets---and he was not allowed in the room. It was strictly on a “need to-know” 19 [basis], do the job, and get it out, and no one knew about it, to my knowledge. No record--- 

 

Gunn: [Interrupting] Just---just so the record’s clear, when you say “all the tickets,” you mean all the security clearances that he had? He had a lot of security clearances? 

 

McMahon: He had clearance, ah, equal to or [the] same as I had, but he was not allowed---it was not, it was not the CIA, or---a---I held other clearances: Atomic Energy, ah, National Security Agency, and, and it was not under any of these. 

 

Gunn: Was there any other compartment, or was it just with a name, such as, ah--- 

 

McMahon: I---There was no code name on it that I know of, and if there was, I couldn’t tell you anyway [chuckling]. 

 

Horne (43:48): Did, did Mr. Smith ever say to you, ah, “This is classified at a certain level”--- - 12 - 

 

McMahon: Yes. He said it is definitely classified on a “need-to know;” and he didn’t give me anything other than it was---that I was sworn to secrecy, and I had---I don’t know whether I had to sign the document, I don’t recall that. But I do know that it could not be divulged. 

 

Horne: Did he give you a level of classification, like Confidential or Secret--- 

 

McMahon: I have no---no, it did not have---he said it was above Top Secret---..."     

 

"...Gunn: OK, what Bill Smith said about what he already knew about the film and what it showed? 

 

McMahon (47:17): It---you didn’t---you, you didn’t---after it was processed, at Eastman Kodak; and it wasn’t in---it was not in the Kod[ak] factory---it was at “Hawkeyeworks.” 

 

Horne: Pardon me? 21 

 

McMahon (47:30): There, there was another Top Secret lab---

Gunn (3:18): OK, and, ah, what did, ah, Mr. Smith say had happened to the film prior to the time that he brought it, in terms of processing, where it had been, and how it had been processed. 

McMahon (3:33): OK, because of expedite and the, the expedite part, is, is in---they wanted to find out what happened, and they had, they had film, that was generously turned into them by a very patriotic person, and [they were] told that he would give it to them, because they--- it might help in the investigation. That---this is what, what he was told---what I was told---and that it was of the utmost urgency. So he hand-carried it through; and flew to Rochester; and got it processed at the---the processing division there, and they were made aware that he was coming. Ah, and did it immediately for him, and I also think they made duplications of that, which I was told, and then he came back [to Washington D.C.], because they told him they couldn’t do what he wanted to get done, and that NPIC could do it. And it fell in our laps, and we did it. 

Gunn (4:55): What---when you said, “They couldn’t get done what needed to be done,” did you mean the enlargements, or was there some other---? 

McMahon: They, they didn’t have a, a laboratory that, that could do the quality of work that he- 14 -wanted. He wanted maximum sharpness, the most “seeability” that, that he could get of the imagery, and that we were set up to do: and we were well beyond the state-of the- art in, in the quality that was turned out. 

Gunn: For the film of the, the assassination, was it your understanding that anything more had been done to it other than developing the original film and making some prints of the original film? 23 

McMahon: The prints, the prints were duplications of the original--- 

Gunn: Film. 

McMahon: Yeah. 

Gunn: Had anything else been done to the film, besides--- 

McMahon: No, no one else had gotten it---to my knowledge. 

Horne (5:52): Was it your understanding that Mr. Smith had come directly to Washington from Rochester? 

McMahon: Yeah---mmm-hmmm, yes. He’d gotten off the airplane and came from National Airport directly to, to our building. 

Gunn (6:06): Just so we’re, we’re clear on something---it was our understanding that the film had been processed by Kodak; ah, when you said it was done in Rochester, it---was that an inference that you drew, when they said it had been processed by Kodak, or did the---did he mention Rochester? 

McMahon: Ah, you’re, you’re getting on classified grounds here, ah, that I can’t answer that question. I know, but I can’t talk to you about that. There was another Top Secret lab, that the government--- you--- 

Gunn: Ah, if you’re uncomfortable talking about it, we, we can stop that here, so that---that’s fine. But this is something that would---that is important for us to be able to do, so we can go, ah, back to the Agency, and talk to them, so [unclear]--- 

McMahon: No, you can do that back through the Agency, and I know that hasn’t been down graded, to, to---public domain. 

[Transcriber’s note: McMahon was referring here to the code-name “Hawkeyeworks,” for the Top Secret lab at Rochester.] 

Gunn: Ah--- 

Horne (7:12): I think there’s a way to rephrase the question, so that it’s ah, not a classified---so that you don’t perceive a classified intent. I, I think the way to rephrase the question might be, did Mr. Smith say, ah, “This was developed at Kodak?” or did he say, “This was developed at Rochester?”24 

McMahon: Again, again, I know where it was done; I know who did it. And I’m not going to answer[chuckling]--- 

Horne: Is there any chance that, ah, where it was done was at a Kodak lab in Dallas? That’s another way of raising this question. 

McMahon: To my knowledge, no--- 

McMahon (8:08): When you’re in bed with the Yellow God[Transcriber’s note: the primary color in the Kodak logo is yellow]---we had their top scientists and photochemists and optical people working in the ‘world beyond; ’we had their people---I shouldn’t even talk about it, I’m sorry. And there was a definite link, on the- 15 -national level, where we had “the best there was” working with us. 

Gunn (9:01): Would it be fair to say that there was, ah, another facility--- 

McMahon: Yes. 

Gunn: ---where [it was] your understanding that this was processed--- 

McMahon: Yes. Gunn: ---and that that facility was mentioned to you by name, so that you knew--- 

McMahon: Yes. 

Gunn: ---where it was--- 

McMahon: Yes. 

Gunn: [Is] That fair [garbled] to say--- 

McMahon: Yes. 

Gunn: OK, but in terms of the name of it we don’t need that, but just--- there, but, there was reference made to a particular place--- 

McMahon: But, I don’t know if there was any downgrading [of the classification level of that facility’s code name, “Hawkeyeworks”]. “National Photographic Interpretation Center” was Top Secret--- you could not say it. You could say “NPIC,” and that was Secret. 

Horne: I see. That’s--- 25 

McMahon: And my cover was that “I worked for the CIA”---I did not work for NPIC. And the military that worked there, worked for the military---whether it was Navy, Army, Air Force, or whatever--- they did not work for [unclear]

 

[Transcriber’s note: subsequent, extended interviews---in 2009 and 2011---of Dino Brugioni, NPIC’s Chief Information Officer, by researchers Peter Janney and Douglas Horne, established that Mr. Brugioni presided over an entirely different “Zapruder film briefing board event” at NPIC the night before Mr. McMahon did. The product created at Mr. Brugioni’s event was entirely different, and the attendees present were entirely different, as was the format of the film delivered for the making of selective enlargements. Furthermore, Mr. Brugioni, whose event commenced the night before McMahon’s, on Saturday night, 11/23/63, was the Duty Officer of record at NPIC the entire weekend following President Kennedy’s assassination: Friday, Saturday, Sunday, as well as on Monday (which became a national holiday because of President 39 Kennedy’s funeral). Mr. Brugioni did not participate in the second NPIC event, which commenced on Sunday night (i.e., the McMahon event), and as Duty Officer, he did not call anyone into work at NPIC on Sunday night, - 24 - 11/24/63. The McMahon event--- the second NPIC event that weekend---took place without the NPIC Duty Officer of record (Mr. Brugioni) being informed, or involved, in any way; we now know that the NPIC Duty Officer (Brugioni) was completely bypassed by those who arranged and conducted the McMahon event, and a completely different NPIC work crew was assembled the second time around (that is, Mr. McMahon and Mr. Hunter, and Navy Captain Sands, in lieu of Mr. Brugioni’s team from the night before). All of these things were unknown by the ARRB staff, and by Mr. McMahon, in July of 1997 when this interview was conducted. Similarly, Mr. Brugioni was not aware, until 2009 (when he was interviewed by Peter Janney), that there had been a second “Zapruder film briefing board event” at NPIC that weekend, following his own event. The “Brugioni event” at NPIC is discussed at length in Volume IV of the transcriber’s book, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, on pages 1230-1239, and 1323-1334. This interview transcript can only be properly appreciated when one knows its true historical context; we now know that there were two compartmentalized operations involving the Zapruder film at the CIA’s NPIC the weekend of the assassination, and that the McMahon event was the second of these two operations.]   

 

https://dickatlee.com/issues/assassinations/jfk/homer_mcmahon_transcript_reformat.pdf

____________

The question that is really most pertinent to the first briefing board session is whether or not Brugioni was working with the camera-original Zapruder film, or whether, as Zapruder film authenticity apologists claim, Brugioni was only working with one of the first-day copies of the film.

The best proof that Brugioni was in fact working with the camera-original Zapruder film is that the film that was brought to him by the Secret Service was an 8mm film (the first day copies were in 16mm format). And how do we know for sure that the film delivered to Brugioni was in fact in 8mm format? Because CIA NPIC did not have an 8mm film projector, and Brugioni had to have a local merchant called to open his store the evening of November 24, 1963, so that NPIC could purchase a projector.

At 1:32 of the following video (which I have cued up for you in advance), you can hear Brugioni himself describe receiving the 8mm film, and continue on to tell the story about having to wake up a merchant to purchase a projector:

 

At 6:08 of the following video (which I have cued up for you in advance), Doug Horne asks Brugioni whether he believes he had the camera-original film or a copy, and why, and Brugioni answers that he believed he had the original because of the fact that the Secret Service agents were personally accompanying and closely guarding the film, and because there was no packaging accompanying the film to indicate that it had been developed as a copy:

____________

And as for Mr. Speer's claim that "Brugioni said the film he saw had an explosion from the top of the head," we have another example of Speer reading into the record indications of a JFK top of the head wound that just are not there. In the video from my YouTube channel that Speer linked us to in support of his top of the head wound claim, when we listen to the relevant segment (at 1:00 of the video below, which I have cued up for you in advance) we hear Brugioni describing "a white mist around the head" that he saw at the time of the headshot in the camera-original Zapruder film which he viewed at the CIA's NPIC the evening of Saturday, November 24, 1963 (a white mist that can no longer be seen in the extant "original" Zapruder film of today), and Brugioni says NOTHING about "an explosion from the top of the head," or anything else whatsoever indicative of the existence of a top of the head wound:

Brugioni's statement about the white mist he viewed around JFK's head at the time of the headshot in the camera-original Zapruder film is best understood within the context of the testimony of multiple Dealey Plaza and camera-original Zapruder film witnesses who reported blood, brain and skull being ejected from the back of JFK's head (imagery that has been completely excised from the extant "original" Zapruder film):

And note that the bulk of the witness testimony indicates that blood, brain and skull was blasted out the back of JFK's head, to the rear, and to the left:

__________
"...BLOOD, BRAIN MATTER, AND BONE FRAGMENTS EXPLODED FROM THE BACK OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD. THE PRESIDENT'S BLOOD, PARTS OF HIS SKULL, BITS OF HIS BRAIN WERE SPLATTERED ALL OVER ME -- ON MY FACE, MY CLOTHES, IN MY HAIR..."

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir").
__________
"...I HAD BRAIN MATTER ALL OVER MY WINDSHIELD AND LEFT ARM, THAT'S HOW CLOSE WE WERE TO IT ... IT WAS THE RIGHT REAR PART OF HIS HEAD ... BECAUSE THAT'S THE PART I SAW BLOW OUT. I SAW HAIR COME OUT, THE PIECES BLOW OUT, THEN THE SKIN WENT BACK IN -- AN EXPLOSION IN AND OUT..."

Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney (3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara).
__________
"...WHEN PRESIDENT KENNEDY STRAIGHTENED BACK UP IN THE CAR THE BULLET HIT HIM IN THE HEAD, THE ONE THAT KILLED HIM AND IT SEEMED LIKE HIS HEAD EXPLODED, AND I WAS SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD AND BRAIN, AND KIND OF A BLOODY WATER...."

Dallas Motorcycle Patrolman Bobby Hargis (4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony).
__________
"...I CAN REMEMBER SEEING THE SIDE OF THE PRESIDENT'S EAR AND HEAD COME OFF. I REMEMBER A FLASH OF WHITE AND THE RED AND JUST BITS AND PIECES OF FLESH EXPLODING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD..."

Dealey Plaza witness Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=13
__________
"...THE HEAD SHOT SEEMED TO COME FROM THE RIGHT FRONT. IT SEEMED TO STRIKE HIM HERE [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], AND HIS HEAD WENT BACK, AND ALL OF THE BRAIN MATTER WENT OUT THE BACK OF THE HEAD. IT WAS LIKE A RED HALO, A RED CIRCLE, WITH BRIGHT MATTER IN THE MIDDLE OF IT - IT JUST WENT LIKE THAT...."

Dealey Plaza witness Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466 ).
__________
"...Charles Brehm: 0:21 WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT, THERE WAS, THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING. IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET, AND, UH, YES, I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET.

Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head?

Charles Brehm: 0:46 I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER OH IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING.

Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly?

Charles Brehm: 0:56 IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK...."

Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs
__________
"...I SAW THE HEAD PRACTICALLY OPEN UP AND BLOOD AND MANY MORE THINGS, WHATEVER IT WAS, BRAINS, JUST CAME OUT OF HIS HEAD...."

Testimony of Dealey Plaza witness Abraham Zapruder -- who filmed the assassination -- at the Clay Shaw trial -- https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm
__________
"...I also asked him if he saw the explosion of blood and brains out of the head. He replied that he did. I asked him if he noticed which direction the eruption went. He pointed back over his left shoulder. He said, "IT WENT THIS WAY." I said, "You mean it went to the left and rear?" He said, "YES." Bartholomew then asked him, "Are you sure that you didn't see the blood and brains going up and to the front?" Schwartz said, "NO; IT WAS TO THE LEFT AND REAR...."

Excerpt from interview of Erwin Schwartz -- Abraham Zapruder's business partner -- who accompanied Zapruder to develop the camera-original Zapruder film, and saw the camera-original projected more than a dozen times. Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman.
__________
"...Brugioni's most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was "...OF JFK'S BRAINS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR." He did not use the term 'head explosion,' but rather referred to apparent exit debris seen on the film the night he viewed it. "...AND WHAT I'LL NEVER FORGET WAS -- I KNEW THAT HE HAD BEEN ASSASSINATED -- BUT WHEN WE ROLLED THE FILM AND I SAW A GOOD PORTION OF HIS HEAD FLYING THROUGH THE AIR, THAT SHOCKED ME, AND THAT SHOCKED EVERYBODY WHO WAS THERE..."

Excerpt from interview of Dino Brugioni -- Photoanalyst at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center -- who viewed the camera-original Zapruder film the evening of 11/23/1963. Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" , 2009, Volume IV, Chapter 14, page 1329.  

 

Yet we see none of that in the following slow motion Zapruder film footage of the head shot. Instead, we only see the D-max black hexagon shaped blotch with sharp edges:

 

[Keven Hofeling]

THE PERSISTENCE OF PAT SPEER'S DECEPTION

Today there is a new addition to the section of Pat Speer's website that is devoted to his lies about James Jenkins. Could this possibly mean that Speer is acknowledging his fraudulent misrepresentations about the testimonial medical evidence of James Jenkins, and is making an effort to correct them on his website as I have demanded on James Jenkins's behalf?

Let's take a look at Speer's new addition and see.

Appearing for the first time today on Pat Speer's website is the following addition placed directly beneath the screenshot and explanatory commentary associated with William Law's 1998 interview of James Jenkins that I exposed yesterday as being fraudulent in the post that initiated this thread, as follows:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-19g-reason-to-doubt

To place Speer's website addendum into its proper context, the following is the verbatim critique from my post of yesterday's date:

______________

On his website, Mr. Speer presents the following commentary and screenshot from an interview of James Jenkins researcher William Law videotaped in 1998. Most notably, Speer makes the following representations about the screenshot he has taken from the videotaped interview: "Law filmed this interview, moreover, and this showed that Jenkins' hand -- the location of the "open hole" -- was entirely above the highest tip of his ear, on the parietal bone, and not on the back of the head below the highest tip of the ear, the location of the occipital bone, and cerebellum. Here, then, is Jenkins, as he said "open hole."

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-19g-reason-to-doubt

After making extensive unsuccessful efforts to locate the videotaped interview online, I contacted William Law who told me he did not know of any place on the web where the video might be found, and that he is unable to locate his copy of the video at this time (Law also told me that he was going to contact James Jenkins to see if he wants to comment on this thread).

However, William Law published his own screenshots from the interview in his 2004 book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence  (https://www.amazon.com/Eye-History-Disclosures-Assassination-Evidence/dp/0965658287), and Law's screenshots demonstrate that Speer has cherry-picked his screenshot from the video, as well as darkened it in a manner that makes it impossible to see that in the screenshot Speer presented James Jenkins is touching the back of his head with his fingers. The obvious question is why didn't Speer present screenshots of any of the video in which Jenkins obviously has his outstretched hand on the back of his head? And the obvious answer is that it is because Speer is not objectively and fairly presenting evidence, he is pursuing a predetermined agenda, and is willing to mislead and defame witnesses and researchers in the process of doing so.

______________

If there had been any doubts before about the corrupt nature of Speer's intentions and motives, we can now put those to rest. It is now also possible to eliminate any potential explanations for Speer's cherry-picking of the screenshot and fraudulent misrepresentations about his screenshot as possibly being the result of Speer himself being ignorant about the existence of the other photographs of James Jenkins placing his hand on the back of his head.

By making this addition to his website, in which he is doubling down on his claims which I have proven to be fraudulent misrepresentations, Mr. Speer is telling us that he is completely aware of the fraudulent nature of his claims, and that he doesn't care that he has been exposed, as he believes there are enough unknowing suckers in the JFKA research community that the revelations will not hinder his pursuit of a fraudulent agenda.

To recap, in the above addendum to his website, Speer has written the following about the new screenshot he has added to his website from my post which exposed the fact that there are additional photographs of James Jenkins demonstrating JFK's large avulsive back of the head wound by placing his hand and fingers on the back of his head:

"Now, in 2024, I was attacked online by someone claiming I had deliberately presented a darkened image to confuse people or some such thing. So here is this image from William Law's book, In the Eye of History. (It is a clearer image, from apparently a split second later, when Jenkins' hand has changed position. But the point is moot as he is still clearly pointing to the top of his head, and not the middle of the back of his head, where people like this someone would like to believe he pointed."

Speer fraudulently omits the fact of the existence of the additional photos of James Jenkins that debunk his claims, fraudulently misrepresents that I had brought those photos to his attention, and doubles down on his fraud by writing: "But the point is moot as he is still clearly pointing to the top of his head, and not the middle of the back of his head, where people like this someone would like to believe he pointed."

Contrary to Speer's deceptive and fraudulent misrepresentations about it, the other photos of James Jenkins DO show Jenkins designating the right side of the back of his head -- and not as Speer claims, the "top of his head" -- as being the location of JFK's large avulsive head wound.

So, for those on this thread who were hemming and hawing about whether Speer's fraudulent misrepresentations were of a theoretical nature rather than of a factual nature: TAKE NOTICE, FOR THIS DAY YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED.

 

[Pat Speer]

Let the casual reader take notice... Whenever I post anything which runs counter to the nonsensical theories of David Mantik or Doug Horne, Keven Hofeling BURIES my comments beneath a mountain of text and fails to address my comments. Keven was a long-time lawyer. This is a classic lawyer trick. If you can't argue the facts you attack the witness. In this case, his posts prove me correct over and over again, but he frames the arguments so that I am on trial...for simply disagreeing with nonsense.

To be clear, James Jenkins told William Law, and Keven agrees he told William Law, there was a hole at the top of the head when he first saw the body. This was what he told me as well. 

Now, what's strange about this is that Mantik/Horne insist Jenkins failed to see the body prior to its being altered, and the wound at the top of the head seen by Jenkins was created by Humes in post-mortem surgery. So they SHOULD have no problem with me or anyone saying Jenkins saw a wound at the top of the head when he first saw the body.

But here's the problem...

Here is what Jenkins told me and Matt Douthit and the whole world in his book:

At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018):

(Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in the morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell perforrmed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning."

SO... a straight-forward discussion of what James Jenkins did or did not see is a problem, a big problem, for Horne's theory.

So how does a lawyer "lawyer" his way out of this?

Obfuscate... and claim I, Pat Speer, owe James Jenkins an apology...

Now, here's another tidbit. I have met Jenkins and really liked him but have been aware for ten years or so that his recollections are subject to change when under pressure from researchers. Now, here's the part the Kevens of this world would like to hide...that Jenkins' malleability was first exposed by David Lifton, not Pat Speer, and that Lifton interviewed Jenkins over 40 years ago and said that at that time Jenkins said the Ida Dox tracing of the back of the head photo was consistent with his recollections. 

So stop the theatrics, already...

You can believe Jenkins' current claims, or not...

But if you choose to believe his current claims, you CAN NOT say you believe his claims support Doug Horne's theory, when he insists they do not...

Edited May 28 by Pat Speer

[Nick Bartetzko]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

People are just exploiting inconsistencies in memories and pretending these people saw two different things. It would be like your mom's friend saying she thought her bridesmaid's dress was a different color than it is in your mom's wedding photos, and you concluding that your mom must have gotten married twice.

To my understanding, Horne et al, claim 1) Brugioni saw the original unaltered Z-film, and 2) this film was altered to add a large wound to the top of the head.

But if memory serves, Brugioni said the film he saw had an explosion from the top of the head. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwldcYcAv4 

I understand your point about inconsistent memories. But the main point is that 2 separate film events occurred and Hawkeyeworks was mentioned. These points are key as is Brugnioni's recollection of tissue and bone exploding high into the air and being seen for a few frames. That tissue landed on the left side of the follow up vehicle and the 2 DPD cyclists on the left rear. We then add the Wilkinson et al observations about the black mark on the rear of the head. Taken as a whole, this all seems quite persuasive to me. 

[Keven Hofeling]

On 5/27/2024 at 5:14 PM, Pat Speer said:

Now, here's the part the Kevens of this world would like to hide...that Jenkins' malleability was first exposed by David Lifton, not Pat Speer, and that Lifton interviewed Jenkins over 40 years ago and said that at that time Jenkins said the Ida Dox tracing of the back of the head photo was consistent with his recollections. 

Your fraudulent claim that James Jenkins told David Lifton that the Ida Dox tracing of the back of the head photo was consistent with his recollections is so hysterically absurd and ridiculous that I deemed it appropriate to respond to it with a post of its own.

I mean, seriously, do you really think we are all so stupid as to fail to fact check the fraudulent misrepresentations of a notorious serial prevaricator?

 

Edited June 4 by Keven Hofeling

[Denny Zartman]

You're doing tremendous work here, @Keven Hofeling . I'll be curious to find out if James Jenkins does offer a comment.

[Keven Hofeling]

On 5/27/2024 at 5:14 PM, Pat Speer said:

Let the casual reader take notice... Whenever I post anything which runs counter to the nonsensical theories of David Mantik or Doug Horne, Keven Hofeling BURIES my comments beneath a mountain of text and fails to address my comments. Keven was a long-time lawyer. This is a classic lawyer trick. If you can't argue the facts you attack the witness. In this case, his posts prove me correct over and over again, but he frames the arguments so that I am on trial...for simply disagreeing with nonsense.

To be clear, James Jenkins told William Law, and Keven agrees he told William Law, there was hole at the top of the head when he first saw the body. This was what he told me as well. 

Now, what's strange about this is that Mantik/Horne insist Jenkins failed to see the body prior to its being altered, and the wound at the top of the head seen by Jenkins was created by Humes in post-mortem surgery. So they SHOULD have no problem with me or anyone saying Jenkins saw a wound at the top of the head when he first saw the body.

But here's the problem...

Here is what Jenkins told me and Matt Douthit and the whole world in his book:

At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018):

(Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in the morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell perforrmed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning."

SO... a straight-forward discussion of what James Jenkins did or did not see is a problem, a big problem, for Horne's theory.

So how does a lawyer "lawyer" his way out of this?

Obfuscate... and claim I, Pat Speer, owe James Jenkins an apology...

Now, here's another tidbit. I have met Jenkins and really liked him but have been aware for ten years or so that his recollections are subject to change when under pressure from researchers. Now, here's the part the Kevens of this world would like to hide...that Jenkins' malleability was first exposed by David Lifton, not Pat Speer, and that Lifton interviewed Jenkins over 40 years ago and said that at that time Jenkins said the Ida Dox tracing of the back of the head photo was consistent with his recollections. 

So stop the theatrics, already...

You can believe Jenkins' current claims, or not...

But if you choose to believe his current claims, you CAN NOT say you believe his claims support Doug Horne's theory, when he insists they do not...

Quote

Let the casual reader take notice... Whenever I post anything which runs counter to the nonsensical theories of David Mantik or Doug Horne, Keven Hofeling BURIES my comments beneath a mountain of text and fails to address my comments. Keven was a long-time lawyer. This is a classic lawyer trick. If you can't argue the facts you attack the witness.

Mr. Speer, do you think we are all stupid? Anybody reading these posts can see that my posts are not just a mountain of legal gobbledygook (which is a hilarious criticism coming from you given your cut and paste jobs of worthless misinformation you post from your website in lieu of actually responding to comments). Rather, my posts are obvious exposés of the blatant fraudulent misrepresentations and defamatory statements you have made against medical evidence witnesses who stand in the way of your nefarious agenda, such as James Jenkins, Dr. Robert McClelland, Nurse Audrey Bell, mortician Tom Robinson, etc., same being meticulously supported by abundant substantiating evidence (otherwise, the forum administrators would sanction me for calling you a prevaricator).

I fail to address your comments??? Mr. Speer, it is you who is infamous for refusing to respond to and address comments and evidence that refutes your disinformation. Everybody familiar with your posting behavior knows that.

Quote

In this case, his posts prove me correct over and over again, but he frames the arguments so that I am on trial...for simply disagreeing with nonsense.

To be clear, James Jenkins told William Law, and Keven agrees he told William Law, there was hole at the top of the head when he first saw the body. This was what he told me as well. 

The one thing I can guarantee is that I have never made a post on this forum that has "proved you correct," and your claim that you have done so "over and over again" is patently absurd. By making such ridiculous statements you portray yourself as being delusional.

And your fraudulent claim that "James Jenkins told William Law, and [that I] agree he told William Law, there was a hole at the top of [JFK's] head when he first saw the body [and that James Jenkins told you this as well]" makes you appear even more delusional, because James Jenkins has never claimed to have seen a hole at the top of JFK's head. James Jenkins did not make such a claim to the HSCA, to David Lifton, to Harrison Livingstone or to William Law. It is a claim that you have fraudulently manufactured and attempted to insert into the historical record. You have fraudulently fashioned your website to make it appear as if James Jenkins has made such a claim, but the claim itself does not appear in any of the interviews of James Jenkins. James Jenkins has always been consistent in his claim that he saw a large gaping hole on the right side of the back of JFK's head, and the fictional account you have spun that Jenkins ever claimed otherwise is easily demonstrated to be fraudulent by the interviews themselves, as I show as follows:

____________

THE 1977 HSCA INTERVIEW OF JAMES JENKINS -- https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md65/html/md65_0001a.htm:

According to the HSCA report of the interview of James Jenkins, Jenkins "said he saw a head wound in the "...middle temporal region back to the occipital."," and nowhere in the HSCA report was it ever reported that Jenkins claimed there was a hole on the top of JFK's head:

The drawing of the "large gaping head wound" that Jenkins executed for the HSCA depicts it as being on the right side of the back of JFK's head:

James Jenkins later reported both to David Lifton and to Harrison Livingstone that the HSCA would not listen to what he was trying to tell them, and that the HSCA seemed to have preconceived notions of what they wanted him to say:

____________

DAVID LIFTON'S 1979 INTERVIEW OF JAMES JENKINS -- https://archive.org/details/best-evidence-disguise-and-deception-in-the-assassination-of-john-f.-kennedy-by-/page/n1/mode/2up

Nowhere in the David Lifton interview was it ever reported that Jenkins claimed there was a hole on the top of JFK's head.

When asked about the location of the large head wound, James Jenkins told David Lifton:

"I would say the parietal and occipital section on the right side of the head-it was a large gaping area, even though, I think, as we put it back together, most of the skull, the bone itself was there. It had just been crushed, and kind of blown apart, toward the rear." 

When Lifton asked Jenkins to describe more graphically where the wound was, Jenkins replied:

"I'm laying my hand on the back area of my skull. And my hand is probably five to six inches from the span of my little finger to the tip of my thumb. So if I spread my fingers and put my hand back there, that probably would be the area that was missing."

____________

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE'S 1990 INTERVIEW OF JAMES JENKINS -- https://archive.org/details/hightreason2grea0000livi/page/282/mode/2up

Nowhere in the Harrison Livingstone interview was it ever reported that Jenkins claimed there was a hole on the top of JFK's head; HOWEVER, JAMES JENKINS DID AFFIRMATIVELY REPORT TO HARRISON LIVINGSTONE THAT THERE "WAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER" LIKE A HOLE IN THE TOP OF JFK'S HEAD.

Harrison Livingstone wrote that the HSCA people showed James Jenkins the Rydberg drawings of JFK's head wound and talked to him about a hole in the top of the head and, according to Jenkins "there was nothing whatsoever like that."

James Jenkins reported to Harrison Livingstone that:

"I looked at the back of the head, but all I saw was the massive gaping wound..."

Harrison Livingstone wrote "[i]n response to my questions on October,8, 1990, as to whether or not there was enough intact scalp on the back of the head to completely cover up the large hole described by all witnesses, Jenkins said, "No. 

"There was a hole in all of it [the scalp and the bone]. There was a hole in the occipital-parietal area. I had seen a wound similar to that before.

"I just never could understand how they came up with the conclusions that they did.

"The other thing that they told me was that there was a wound on the top of the head. I don't remember that. I could almost say that there was none."

James Jenkins said to Harrison Livingstone: "Looking at the photos in your book, the large defect seems to have slid forward toward the frontal area of the head, too. I can't say that I'm absolutely right, but I feel like if it had been really that far forward in the head, certainly we would have seen it. And I would not have focused on .. ."

"You certainly would have-what?"

"The large defect. That's almost on the top as opposed to the area where we saw it."

____________

APRIL 6, 1991 INTERVIEW OF JAMES JENKINS AT THE DALLAS MEDICAL WITNESS CONFERENCE -- https://youtu.be/t_FY2loSOZY?si=SNTRGVBpdo4hBWOX

Nowhere in the Dallas Medical Witness Conference interview was it ever reported that Jenkins claimed there was a hole on the top of JFK's head.

In the following video James Jenkins describes the large avulsive wound he saw at the beginning of the autopsy as "an open gaping wound" approximately the "size of a closed fist," similar "to Dr. McClelland's drawing," except a little higher. Jenkins then goes on to identify the F-8 autopsy "mystery" photo as being of "the massive cavity" that existed at the beginning of the autopsy.

Then Harrison Livingstone asked Jenkins to turn around and put his hand on his head to show "where that large hole was," and Jenkins turned his body entirely around in his chair to do so, placing it on the back of his head, as follows:

That this is the case is even clearer when you watch the following video clip of the segment, during which Jenkins says "[t]he whole wound extended basically ... If I place the palm of my hand a little superior anterior to the ear, it would encompass the circle of fingers. Approximately (while Jenkins moves his hand closer to the rear of his ear) in this area was where the final hole was after everything had been drawn back and the body had been prepared for burial."

____________

WILLIAM LAW'S 1998 INTERVIEW OF JAMES JENKINS -- https://www.amazon.com/Eye-History-Disclosures-Assassination-Evidence/dp/0965658287

In the following, pages 243 and 244 of In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence by William Law, James Jenkins, while looking at a copy of the back of the head autopsy photograph, makes it clear that the large gaping head wound -- under which the bone was missing -- was in the back of JFK's head and should be visible in the photograph. Seeking clarification, Law received confirmation from James Jenkins that he believes the large gaping head wound was "a blowout in the back of the head":

And then, of course, there are the photographs of James Jenkins demonstrating that the large gaping head wound was in the back of JFK's head:

____________

THE MORAL OF THIS STORY, MR. SPEER, IS THAT YOU OWE JAMES JENKINS A PUBLIC APOLOGY FOR YOUR MALEVOLENT DISTORTIANS OF HIS STORY, AS WELL AS PUBLIC APOLOGIES TO ALL OF THE RESEARCHERS THAT YOU HAVE LIBELED IN ASSOCIATION THEREWITH; NAMELY, MESSYRS LAW, HORNE, MANTIK AND CHESSER.

 

Edited June 4 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

Let the casual reader take notice... Whenever I post anything which runs counter to the nonsensical theories of David Mantik or Doug Horne, Keven Hofeling BURIES my comments beneath a mountain of text and fails to address my comments. Keven was a long-time lawyer. This is a classic lawyer trick. If you can't argue the facts you attack the witness. In this case, his posts prove me correct over and over again, but he frames the arguments so that I am on trial...for simply disagreeing with nonsense.

To be clear, James Jenkins told William Law, and Keven agrees he told William Law, there was a hole at the top of the head when he first saw the body. This was what he told me as well. 

Now, what's strange about this is that Mantik/Horne insist Jenkins failed to see the body prior to its being altered, and the wound at the top of the head seen by Jenkins was created by Humes in post-mortem surgery. So they SHOULD have no problem with me or anyone saying Jenkins saw a wound at the top of the head when he first saw the body.

But here's the problem...

Here is what Jenkins told me and Matt Douthit and the whole world in his book:

At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018):

(Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in the morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell perforrmed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning."

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

I understand your point about inconsistent memories. But the main point is that 2 separate film events occurred and Hawkeyeworks was mentioned. These points are key as is Brugnioni's recollection of tissue and bone exploding high into the air and being seen for a few frames. That tissue landed on the left side of the follow up vehicle and the 2 DPD cyclists on the left rear. We then add the Wilkinson et al observations about the black mark on the rear of the head. Taken as a whole, this all seems quite persuasive to me. 

I remember going back and reading the early statements from the NPIC people. They were not at all sure when they saw the film. Horne et all have insisted they viewed the film on different days and that the film was whisked off to be altered in between. But there is no evidence for this outside of speculation. Pure speculation.

As you have acknowledged, moreover, Brugioni remembered tissue and blood exploding high into the air. Horne and his gang claim this was added by evil bad guys AFTER Brugioni viewed the film, correct? So their "star witness" actually suggests the exact opposite of what they claim he suggests. 

And this is not a surprise, really. If you go back and read the testimony of Tom Robinson you will see that he insisted the small wound he saw on the temple oe cheek was NOT a bullet hole. So, of course, the Mantik/Horne clan claim he said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead. 

Or what about Ed Reed? He claimed he took x-rays, and watched Humes begin the autopsy from the stands. And was then asked to leave. But Horne claims  he saw Humes begin post-mortem surgery, was asked to leave, and was then brought back to take the x-rays.

It's a con. And Mantik knows it because he always cites Horne's claims about Ed Reed rather than Reed's actual testimony,

It's sad. And the only person who could have put a stop to this madness, IMO, has just passed on. 

 

[Keven Hofeling]

4 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Let the casual reader take notice... Whenever I post anything which runs counter to the nonsensical theories of David Mantik or Doug Horne, Keven Hofeling BURIES my comments beneath a mountain of text and fails to address my comments. Keven was a long-time lawyer. This is a classic lawyer trick. If you can't argue the facts you attack the witness. In this case, his posts prove me correct over and over again, but he frames the arguments so that I am on trial...for simply disagreeing with nonsense.

To be clear, James Jenkins told William Law, and Keven agrees he told William Law, there was a hole at the top of the head when he first saw the body. This was what he told me as well. 

Now, what's strange about this is that Mantik/Horne insist Jenkins failed to see the body prior to its being altered, and the wound at the top of the head seen by Jenkins was created by Humes in post-mortem surgery. So they SHOULD have no problem with me or anyone saying Jenkins saw a wound at the top of the head when he first saw the body.

But here's the problem...

Here is what Jenkins told me and Matt Douthit and the whole world in his book:

At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018):

(Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in the morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell perforrmed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning."

Quote

To be clear, James Jenkins told William Law, and Keven agrees he told William Law, there was a hole at the top of the head when he first saw the body. This was what he told me as well.

@Pat Speer, I made it clear to you in the post immediately preceding this one that I DO NOT AGREE that James Jenkins told William Law that there was a hole at the top of JFK's head when he first saw the body. You have now twice falsely claimed that I do agree with your false claim.

In fact, my previous post demonstrated that James Jenkins never told the HSCA, David Lifton, Harrison Livingstone or William Law that there was a hole at the top of JFK's head when he first saw the body. Furthermore, I demonstrated to you that in 1990 James Jenkins affirmatively told Harrison Livingstone that HE DID NOT SEE ANY HOLE AT THE TOP OF JFK'S HEAD.

It is a violation of the rules of this forum to falsely attribute statements to others that they did not in fact make, and it is also a violation of the rules of this forum to intentionally disseminate false information. This post constitutes a warning that if you fail to make the needed corrections to the factual record, as set forth above, within twelve (12) hours of the time of this post, I will report these violations to the forum administrators, and you may be more severely sanctioned for failing to self-correct at the time of this warning.

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

@Pat Speer, I made it clear to you in the post immediately preceding this one that I DO NOT AGREE that James Jenkins told William Law that there was a hole at the top of JFK's head when he first saw the body. You have now twice falsely claimed that I do agree with your false claim.

In fact, my previous post demonstrated that James Jenkins never told the HSCA, David Lifton, Harrison Livingstone or William Law that there was a hole at the top of JFK's head when he first saw the body. Furthermore, I demonstrated to you that in 1990 James Jenkins affirmatively told Harrison Livingstone that HE DID NOT SEE ANY HOLE AT THE TOP OF JFK'S HEAD.

It is a violation of the rules of this forum to falsely attribute statements to others that they did not in fact make, and it is also a violation of the rules of this forum to intentionally disseminate false information. This post constitutes a warning that if you fail to make the needed corrections to the factual record, as set forth above, within twelve (12) hours of the time of this post, I will report these violations to the forum administrators, and you may be more severely sanctioned for failing to self-correct at the time of this warning.

 Look at the second photo from Law's book that you posted... As Jenkins says "with the open hole in this area" he points to the top of his head. 

Here is Horne pointing out what he claims was the hole as first viewed by Humes. This is not where Jenkins pointed out an "open hole." And that's okay. Horne and Mantik claim Jenkins viewed the wound AFTER Humes performed the post-mortem surgery.

 . 

Edited May 28 by Pat Speer

[Tom Gram]

6 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

t is a violation of the rules of this forum to falsely attribute statements to others that they did not in fact make, and it is also a violation of the rules of this forum to intentionally disseminate false information. This post constitutes a warning that if you fail to make the needed corrections to the factual record, as set forth above, within twelve (12) hours of the time of this post, I will report these violations to the forum administrators, and you may be more severely sanctioned for failing to self-correct at the time of this warning.

It’s also against forum rules to repeatedly call someone a fraudulent liar. “You keep listening to their lying ass anyway”? Where does it say you can use memes to blatantly violate forum rules? 

Are you on a crusade to get Pat banned so you can turn this forum into an alterationist echo chamber or something? People have different views on the medical evidence. Get over it. Having different opinions expressed in a debate forum is supposed to be a good thing. 

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

So you say I´m bootlicking? Again not ad hominem I assume.

 

I said you were bootlicking because I recall the last time Keven proved Pat lied, your response was much the same as it is this time. That it wasn't a matter of lying, but rather a matter of interpretation. And so you came to Pat's rescue.

Well, you are just as wrong this time as you were last time. This matter has nothing to do with interpretation and everything to do with whether a person accepts a fact or decides to fraudulently mischaracterize it to meet their objectives.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Let the casual reader take notice... Whenever I post anything which runs counter to the nonsensical theories of David Mantik or Doug Horne, Keven Hofeling BURIES my comments beneath a mountain of text and fails to address my comments.

 

Pat,

The topic of this thread is that you are telling a lie about what James Jenkins said.

What happens, contrary to what you are saying (which I quote above), is that Keven presents his case that you are lying, and rather than defend yourself, you change the topic to James Jenkins supposedly disagreeing with Horne's theory of pre-autopsy illicit surgery to the head.

Keven rightly ignores your off-topic post, after which you use that against him, saying it is some kind of lawyerly trick. It is not a lawyerly trick.

Please stick to the topic of this thread. If you wish to discuss James Jenkins' opinion of Horne's illicit head surgery theory, please do so on a separate thread.