The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

It’s also against forum rules to repeatedly call someone a fraudulent liar.

 

You shouldn't call someone a liar. But you can say someone lied about something specific if it has been proven they lied.

 

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Are you on a crusade to get Pat banned so you can turn this forum into an alterationist echo chamber or something?

 

It looks to me like Keven is on a crusade to get Pat to quit lying.

But your sarcastic "alterationist echo chamber" comment probably explains why you are willing to put up with Pat Speer lies regarding the medical evidence.

 

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

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. 

 

Lying is a bad thing.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Pat,

You have posted TWO lies in this thread, repeated multiple times, as quoted here:

 

This sentence has one lie:

On 5/27/2024 at 5:02 AM, Pat Speer said:

Jenkins points out a wound at the top of his head in the images he presents, exactly as I've claimed.

 

 This sentence has two lies:

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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 sentence has two lies:

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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 sentence has one lie:

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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. 

 

If I penalize you for both these lies, you will be issued 20 penalty points. In addition, you will receive another 20 points because another member (Keven) has asked you to remove these forum violations.

The following is a table showing how many days of posting privileges a member loses based on their accumulated penalty points:

10 Points  =  1 day
20 Points  =  2 days
30 Points  =  4 days
40 Points  =  8 days

Please remove these lies ASAP to save yourself from being penalized.

Note that, should you restate what you've said in a way that indicates they are your interpretation or your opinion, doing so would effectively change your lies to factual statements, given that you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe... regardless of how intellectually dishonest it may be.

 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

Except... His post proved me correct. James Jenkins said...numerous times...that the open hole was at the top of the head...

 

Edited May 28 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Except... His post proved me correct. James Jenkins said...numerous times...that the open hole was at the top of the head...

 

 

I see his fingers point to the top of his head.

I don't hear the words, "the hole was here" coming out of his mouth.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't hear the words, "the hole was here" coming out of his mouth.

 

Keven has presented multiple instances of James Jenkins saying there was a large hole on the back of JFK's head.

Show me one transcript or one video where James Jenkins said that the hole was on the top of the head.

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

Ok, what would be Pat´s objectives?  Just say it, as you must have an idea?  If you don´t know, then there are none. Otherwise just say it out loud.

And when I feel, and that´s my godd*mn right, that IMO this IS about interpretations (of a video, or a text,...), my previous reactions had little or nothing to do with Pat in person, how what that be bootlicking anyone???

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Ok, what would be Pat´s objectives?  Just say it, as you must have an idea?  If you don´t know, then there are none. Otherwise just say it out loud.

 

Are you asking me what I think Pat's objective is for lying?

 

3 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

And when I feel, and that´s my godd*mn right, that IMO this IS about interpretations (of a video, or a text,...), my previous reactions had little or nothing to do with Pat in person, how what that be bootlicking anyone???

 

It is my opinion that -- upon looking at the evidence -- you are not such a fool as to believe there is any interpretation to have. Jenkins made it clear there was a large hole on the back of the head. So I therefore believe you were merely bootlicking.

I, of course, could be wrong about that.

 

[Pat Speer]

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Keven has presented multiple instances of James Jenkins saying there was a large hole on the back of JFK's head.

Show me one transcript or one video where James Jenkins said that the hole was on the top of the head.

 

Uh...hello... The image posted by Keven comes from William Law's book, which is a collection of transcripts. Law included images from these interviews to demonstrate where people were pointing, etc. So the transcript is in Law's book. 

 

[Joe Bauer]

James Jenkins is laying his fingertips on the right side "far back" top of his head.

That is quite a difference in location for the "open hole" that many stated was not so far back and more closer frontally toward and above the right ear line of JFK.

And if the hole Jenkins saw was at the far back right side of the skull it could have extended it's large circumference down the back side if even slightly.

This would validate the testimony of the Parkland ER doctor who was standing at the top of the ER treatment gurney and looking straight down at JFK's head.

He stated JFK's brain matter was literally oozing out the blast hole located at the top back of JFK's skull and falling downward onto the gurney and even the floor. 

IMO a blast hole not squarely in the back and not squarely on the top.

 

[Pat Speer]

17 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

James Jenkins is laying his fingertips on the right side "far back" top of his head.

That is quite a difference in location for the "open hole" that many stated was not so far back and more closer frontally toward and above the right ear line of JFK.

And if the hole Jenkins saw was at the far back right side of the skull it could have extended it's large circumference down the back side if even slightly.

This would validate the testimony of the Parkland ER doctor who was standing at the top of the ER treatment gurney and looking straight down at JFK's head.

He stated JFK's brain matter was literally oozing out the blast hole located at the top back of JFK's skull and falling downward onto the gurney and even the floor. 

IMO a blast hole not squarely in the back and not squarely on the top.

 

And you can see the hole at the top of the back of the head in uncropped versions of the back wound photo...as at right below.

The back of the head photo at left is undoubtedly deceptive, as a flap has been lifted up, which has obscured part of the hole on the top back of the head where Jenkins pointed. 

 

It should be noted as well that the only photo to sow confusion among the Parkland witnesses was the photo on the left. 

From Chapter 19h:

Four of the Parkland doctors DID view the top of the head photos along with the other photos when visiting the archives for NOVA, in 1988, and all four of them, including Dr. McClelland, said the photos they saw corresponded to what they remembered. And all four pointed out a wound at the TOP of the back of the head--which was yessirree, consistent with the wound shown in the top of the head photos. 

So, yeah, we can assume that none of these doctors--not even McClelland--had a problem with the top of the head photo. 

And that's more than an assumption. In 2015, Jacob Carter released Before History Dies,  a collection of interviews of JFK assassination witnesses and researchers. Well, Dr. McClelland was one of those interviewed, and Carter pressed  him on the back of the head photos--whether McClelland thought the autopsy photos were fake or not. As discussed in the last chapter, he told Carter: "Well, I think it's only that one picture. I discounted that picture because I thought someone was pulling the scalp over it, but someone told me they weren't, but it sure looked like they were. I think they were, so I was not mystified by saying it doesn't look like what I saw. The wounds that I saw when that flap is not covering them were just the kind of same wounds that I had seen in Trauma Room One. That picture where they are pulling the flap up was the only one out of several photos, which didn't jive with what I saw."

Well, this was non-committal. Carter wanted to know whether or not McClelland thought the back of the head photo was designed to fool people. So he followed up and asked "Do you think they didn't want people to see the wound in the back of the head?" Now, here's the surprise... McClelland replied: "If they were trying to do that they wouldn't have shown any of the open wounds that weren't covered with the flap...it was appartent that he had a big hole on the back of his skull on the right side. I don't think they were trying to cover it up or they wouldn't have shown (the wound in) those other photos." 

Well, there it is. McClelland thought the other photos showing the head wound, including no doubt the top of the head photo, were accurate presentations of Kennedy's injuries. 

And we can feel confident he wasn't the only Parkland witness to say so.  While Robert Groden did show the back of the head photos to numerous Parkland witnesses, and come away claiming they all disputed the accuracy of these photos, he also claimed the top of the head photos WERE UNALTERED, and reflected what was seen at Parkland.

Edited May 28 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Show me one transcript or one video where James Jenkins said that the hole was on the top of the head.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Uh...hello... The image posted by Keven comes from William Law's book, which is a collection of transcripts. Law included images from these interviews to demonstrate where people were pointing, etc. So the transcript is in Law's book.

 

Okay, so you can't produce a single transcript or video where James Jenkins says the wound is on the top of the head.

But you mention a transcript in William Law's book. Well here it is, along with the frame (bottom image) from the video where he said it:

 

 

This is a photocopy from his book. Here is the full quote, also from the book:

"I would say that if you take your hand and you put the heel of your thumb behind your ear, that would cover the basic part of the wound with the open hole approximately in that area."

 

The "heel of your thumb" is the fleshy part between the thumb and the palm. If you place that behind your right ear, that is where the wound was according to Jenkins.

That, Pat, is not the top of the head. That is the back of the head.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

James Jenkins is laying his fingertips on the right side "far back" top of his head.

 

Problem is, Joe, Pat cherry-picked a frame from his interview where his fingers were nearest the top of his head. Here are other frames from the interview:  (ignore the top photo)

 

 

 

Also, look at the drawing James Jenkins did for the HSCA:

 

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

I join with two of the more serious and valued contributors to this forum, Jean-Paul Ceulemans and Tom Gram, in saying on behalf of a third member, one who has done an enormous amount of solid, original research contributing to the JFK assassination case on a number of angles, Pat Speer ... in my opinion Sandy you and Keven are out of line with this treatment of Pat.

The bludgeoning of Pat Speer into being forbidden to speak his argument or express his interpretations or exegesis of texts (the texts being the testimonies verbal and visual of witnesses) on this forum is not right. It would be a huge loss if Pat's voice were gone. It is clear that is what Keven is after, but the moderators--all of you--is that what you are after too? 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Problem is, Joe, Pat cherry-picked a frame from his interview where his fingers were nearest the top of his head. Here are other frames from the interview:  (ignore the top photo)

 

 

 

Also, look at the drawing James Jenkins did for the HSCA:

 

 

 

I'm fairly certain the wound Jenkins depicted for the HSCA was the wound he saw after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. This is essentially what is shown in the mystery photo. 

He told researchers in 2013, after all, that the original hole was "somewhat larger than a silver dollar."

The hole in the HSCA drawings is several times that of a silver dollar.

In any event, he was most assuredly not depicting this..

.

 

Edited May 28 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

41 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I join with two of the more serious and valued contributors to this forum, Jean-Paul Ceulemans and Tom Gram, in saying on behalf of a third member, one who has done an enormous amount of solid, original research contributing to the JFK assassination case on a number of angles, Pat Speer ... in my opinion Sandy you and Keven are out of line with this treatment of Pat.

The bludgeoning of Pat Speer into being forbidden to speak his argument or express his interpretations or exegesis of texts (the texts being the testimonies verbal and visual of witnesses) on this forum is not right. It would be a huge loss if Pat's voice were gone. It is clear that is what Keven is after, but the moderators--all of you--is that what you are after too? 

There is an effort behind the scenes to push Mantik's new book as the final word on the medical evidence. If this is so, well, I am rightly seen as an obstacle.