The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Keven Hofeling]

8 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Keven.  Sandy, Mark and I agree on pretty much everything since they asked me to join them.  I've purposely tried to stay out of this fray.  But please try to refrain from the "batshit crazy paranoid fantasy", "bootlicker", and "legend in your own mind" comments.

These could be construed as personal insults to another member.  I'm not a bootlicker for Pat or anyone else.

I've deleted those comments. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Mark Knight]

9 hours 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.

 

I concur.

Your assessment is more than just a tiny bit logical.

Which, then, bolsters my assessment that the primary differences stem from interpretative differences and semantic differences.

[Mark Knight]

7 hours 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? 

As one of the forum administrators, I must point out that discussion forums such as this one are about discussing what one believes and why one believes it. The purpose is NOT to "ride someone out of town on a rail" simply because their interpretation of the facts differs from your own.

And THAT, my friends, explains why David Von Pein was reinstated to The Education Forum (pending his agreement to follow EF rules on discussion decorum).

So far as I can see, Pat and Keven are merely interpreting Jenkins' statement and the photos connected to them differently. 

Remember the "Mystic" paint Ford used on their Mustang a few years back? At different angles the car looked purple, green, or gold. So if two witnesses viewed an auto accident involving said Mustang, and one said the car was purple and the other swore it was green...which one is lying? Since they're directly contradicting one another, one of the witnesses HAS to be a liar...right?

To me, that sums up this entire thread so far. But I'll read on.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

On 5/28/2024 at 9:33 PM, Mark Knight said:

I concur.

Your assessment is more than just a tiny bit logical.

Which, then, bolsters my assessment that the primary differences stem from interpretative differences and semantic differences.

The following are representations of the "hole" in the back of the head put forth by James Jenkins:

JENKINS: "...Now the wound that I saw: [pointing to regions on a skull model] This is the occipital area here, the parietal area here, and in the temporal area here. The wound was here approximately where my finger is [Jenkins points to the upper occipital region of the back of the skull model], and it extended down here [Jenkins indicates a lower region on the occiput with his thumb]. It was about 3 and a half inches long, this being the length [Jenkins demonstrates length on skull model], about 2 inches wide [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. That was where the missing bone was, and the missing tissue was. Okay, it wasn't exactly a square or a round thing. The top of the wound was kind of domed, and it came down and kinda had a little tail type of thing that came into here [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model], and then it kind of came back up in this area [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. 

[See James Jenkins answer at the following link which has been cued up for you https://youtu.be/2U7dXPA_juM?t=1774 ]

__________________

And the following are what Pat Speer relies upon in support of the claim of fact he makes that James Jenkins has repeatedly claimed that he saw a "hole in the top of [JFK's] head":

__________________

James Jenkins has specifically disclaimed that he ever saw a hole in the top of JFK's head, as follows:

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."

__________________

Pat Speer has been asked to provide ONE quote from James Jenkins saying that he saw "a hole in the top of [JFK's] head," and out of a half a dozen published interviews of James Jenkins, Speer has not been able to provide even ONE.

This is not a mere difference of interpretation.

Pat Speer is making a very specific claim of fact which he has been unable to support with any evidence.

 

Edited June 10 by Keven Hofeling

[Denny Zartman]

44 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

The purpose is NOT to "ride someone out of town on a rail" simply because their interpretation of the facts differs from your own.

And THAT, my friends, explains why David Von Pein was reinstated to The Education Forum

Von Pein was not expelled from the forum because his interpretation of the facts differed from others. Von Pein was expelled from the forum for stealing user content for his own use without giving notice or getting permission.

[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 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...

My responses to Mr. Speer's comments are interlineated below in bold red:

Pat Speer wrote: 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.

None of the posts I have made on this thread have had anything to do with the theories of David Mantik or Doug Horne, and if you had posted anything that runs counter to their theories to which you believe this thread is a response, I am unaware of what that might be. Would you kindly identify what you had posted to that effect and where that might have been posted to support your assertion? 

You seem not to have thought your assertion through very well. It is obviously intended to mislead the readers of this thread because you and I both know it is not true. Didn't it occur to you that readers would simply read my posts and quickly realize that I am presenting not any kind of defense of Mantik's or Horne's theories, but straightforward rebuttals of the factual misrepresentations you have made about the historical claims of James Jenkins?

And what is this about "Keven Hofeling BURIES my comments beneath a mountain of text and fails to address [your] comments"? Didn't it occur to you that the readers of this thread can simply read what you and I have both written and easily ascertain that you are not making any comments that are responsive to my rebuttals of your misrepresentations about James Jenkins and are instead making unresponsive straw man arguments about the theories of David Mantik and Doug Horne in order to deflect attention away from my exposé of your fallacious claims about Jenkins, and that you have simply failed to offer any responsive comments for me to respond to?

 

Pat Speer wrote: 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.

If it is I who is employing "a classic lawyer trick" by attacking you instead of arguing the facts, then why is it that it is actually you who is refusing to respond to my rebuttals of your misrepresentations about James Jenkins, instead employing ad hominem attacks against me as a lawyer? Would you kindly identify what attacks I have posted against you personally and where that might have been posted in order to support your assertion? And do you really believe that the readers of this thread are too stupid to be able to distinguish between rebuttals of your fallacious claims against James Jenkins and ad hominem attacks made personally against you? Is it you personally who is on trial, or your factual misrepresentations of the historical claims of James Jenkins, and why are you unable to tell the difference? 

AND IF IT IS TRUE THAT MY POSTS "PROVE [YOU] CORRECT OVER AND OVER AGAIN," THEN WHY HAVE YOU STILL FAILED TO PRODUCE EVEN ONE EXAMPLE OF JAMES JENKINS SAYING HE SAW "A HOLE IN THE TOP OF [JFK'S] HEAD" OUT OF A HALF DOZEN PUBLISHED INTERVIEWS?

 

Pat Speer wrote: 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.

NO, MR. PAT SPEER, 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.

And just how believable do you think it is, I mean really, that James Jenkins told you that he saw a hole in the top of JFK's head, but did not say so to the HSCA, David Lifton, Harrison Livingstone or William Law. I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.

Again, the theories of Doug Horne and Dr. David Mantik have nothing to do with this, and your theories about Horne and Mantik cannot substitute for the claims of James Jenkins himself.

 

Pat Speer wrote: 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.

Again, you are deflecting, Mr. Speer. The theories of Doug Horne and Dr. David Mantik are irrelevant to the issue of your fraudulent misrepresentations about James Jenkins...

 

Pat Speer wrote: So how does a lawyer "lawyer" his way out of this?

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

Come on now, Mr. Speer, really? More ad hominem?

 

Pat Speer wrote: 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. 

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?

 

Pat Speer wrote: 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...

And it is precisely this that is the malignant heart of the fraudulent misrepresentations that you have made about the historical accounts of James Jenkins about the medical evidence -- that Jenkins claimed that there was a hole in the top of JFK's head prior to 2015, and then changed his story after being persuaded to do so by William Law, Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser.

BUT JAMES JENKINS NEVER CLAIMED HE HAD SEEN A HOLE IN THE TOP OF JFK'S HEAD IN ANY OF HE INTERVIEWS PRIOR TO 2015, NOT TO THE HSCA IN 1977, NOT TO DAVID LIFTON IN 1979, NOT TO HARRISON LIVINGSTONE IN 1990, NOT AT THE 1991 DALLAS MEDICAL WITNESSES CONFERENCE, AND NOT TO WILLIAM LAW IN 1998.

IN FACT, JAMES JENKINS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMED THAT HE EVER SAW A HOLE IN THE TOP OF JFK'S HEAD TO HARRISON LIVINGSTONE IN 1990, AS FOLLOWS:

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."

__________________

You have now repeatedly been asked to provide ONE quote from James Jenkins saying that he saw "a hole in the top of [JFK's] head," and out of a half a dozen published interviews of James Jenkins, you have not been able to provide even ONE.

This is not a mere difference of interpretation.

You are making a very specific claim of fact which you have been unable to support with any evidence.

 

Edited June 4 by Keven Hofeling

[Sandy Larsen]

On 5/28/2024 at 8:50 PM, Mark Knight said:

I just read the first page of this thread. So far, what I see is a dispute over semantics. Allow me to explain my point.

 

Mark,

Please read my posts on this thread:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30476-moderators-discussion-of-pat-speers-claim-that-james-jenkins-placed-the-wound-at-the-top-of-the-head/

 

[Keven Hofeling]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Mark,

Please read my posts on this thread:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30476-moderators-discussion-of-pat-speers-claim-that-james-jenkins-placed-the-wound-at-the-top-of-the-head/

 

William Law just messaged me that he is going to try to talk to Jim Jenkins today and get his reaction which he will "send along":

 

 

[Pat Speer]

On 5/28/2024 at 5:57 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What I said is correct. James Jenkins was describing the mortician-reconstructed wound when he described it as being the size of a silver dollar.

I transcribed it from the first video below. Here is what he said:

"After the plaster was placed by the mortician ... in the head, it was remolded... there was an area in the back of the head that had -- it was actually a hole in the back of the head that was approximately the size of the silver dollar."

 

Later, he went back chronologically and described the original wound when they first took the towels off:

"I would like to kind of reverse a little bit and go back to what the wound looked like when we actually took the towels off the head at the initial. The wound was a massive type of wound where it was an open gaping wound approximately the size of a closed fist or maybe a little larger, more similar to what Dr. McClelland says in his drawing. ...as far as the area that it was in, I remember the wound a little higher maybe than in the drawing."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horne is wrong about this.

 

Actually, Horne wasn't incorrect in claiming Jenkins said the wound was somewhat larger than a silver dollar. Yep, that's right. While I have spent untold hours arguing that Doug Horne was wrong about this or that, I can say without any hesitation whatsoever that Jenkins did claim--prior to his book--that the wound was a round hole slightly bigger than a silver dollar. And that Horne was correct in saying so. 

First, of all, Horne's words came from Mantik's notes, and Mantik himself claimed Jenkins had said this.

And, second of all, I just re-watched William Law's interview of Jenkins, which he played at the 2009 Lancer Conference. And Jenkins demonstrated the size of the hole with his fingers.

And it was somewhat larger than a silver dollar. 

 

Edited May 31 by Pat Speer

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

...And, second of all, I just re-watched William Law's interview of Jenkins, which he played at the 2009 Lancer Conference. And Jenkins demonstrated the size of the hole with his fingers.

And it was somewhat larger than a silver dollar. 

You have the tape of William Law's interview of James Jenkins which I have repeatedly stated in the posts on this thread that I have not been able to locate online, and which William Law is also unable to locate, and you have not mentioned that fact?

Could that be because it is during that interview that James Jenkins demonstrates the location of the large head wound, a single screenshot of which you have seized upon for your claim that Jenkins said "NUMEROUS TIMES" that he saw a hole in the top of JFK's head? If we could all view that segment of that interview, we would be able to place the screenshot you are relying upon in its proper context, and you don't want that, do you?

And if we could all view that tape we would all be able to determine whether you darkened the screenshot of James Jenkins placing his fingers on the back of his head so that it instead looks like Jenkins is pointing to the top of his head (as seen directly below), and you don't want that either, do you?

If you would be so kind as to provide us with the link to that video (if it is online) or the file itself (if you just have the actual file) we would be able to answer the questions set forth above, as well as provide same to William Law, who has been searching for his copy of it. Could you do that for us as a professional courtesy please?

 

Edited May 30 by Keven Hofeling

[Greg Doudna]

I have looked at the videos of Jenkins visually placing his hand with spread fingers at roughly the upper part of the rear or right rear area of his head, and saying the tips of his fingers and palm would roughly describe the area of the gaping wound he saw. 

The area covered by Jenkins’ description clearly covers the upper part of the back of his head, but also extends into the rear part of the top of his head. At least that is how Jenkins’ gestures and description read to me, and what I believe a reasonable person would agree is reasonable description of Jenkins there.

And that large area described by Jenkins is clearly (at least most of it) “higher” in the back of the head than the smaller, lower hole, the “silver dollar” or slightly larger, in the lower occipit after Robinson finished the reconstruction and the torn scalp etc were pulled or stretched down to cover “most” of the gaping larger hole of Jenkins’ splayed-fingers first description that Jenkins said he earlier saw.

Now for the critical issue. Is it possible Keven’s and Sandy’s accusations and fulminations and horrible name-calling of Pat as an out and out l i a r—such a conversation-stopping word if there ever was one—could be over a partly semantic issue?

Is it “lying” to call the “top of the rear of the head” “at the top of the head”?

Is it “lying” to call a gaping wound that covers both the upper part of the rear of the head and part of the rear of the top of the head, the “top” of the head?

I am not assuming Pats description or interpretation is perfect, though his argument that the massive area of the gaping wound is better explained as a tangential hit than a through-and-through shot seems to have a case.

I saw earlier Keven call David von Pein’s completely innocuous description of the head wound in the worst form of identical “liar” language toward von Pein on that point, as Keven uses of Pat. I read that at the time and was as mystified as was von Pein himself at what Keven was “on” about with the horrible name-calling. I honestly could not see what Keven was objecting to in von Pein’s description exactly, underneath the inflamed name-calling. 

This business of a moderator declaring it impermissible for a researcher to express a view or interpretation because it “has been shown wrong” is a slippery slope Sandy. Who decides? Lots of “whatabouts” could be cited on that.

And I know you have claimed you do not object to Pat expressing an interpretation or as his opinion if he called it that. But everyone’s statements here have that as a given implied whether it is explicitly expressed or not. Are you saying everything Pat said would be OK if he (tiresomely, and alone of anyone else) were to preface every single sentence of his existing statements with a rote, pro forma “in my opinion…”?

Why not allow Pats to stand, and Keven’s (though less repetition and links to former in lieu of a hundred lengthy repetitions would be easier on everyone’s eyes from Keven) … and let readers judge for themselves which are the better published or posted arguments or have the stronger claims to truth or accuracy of description of the matter?

[Keven Hofeling]

On 5/30/2024 at 2:59 PM, Greg Doudna said:

I have looked at the videos of Jenkins visually placing his hand with spread fingers at roughly the upper part of the rear or right rear area of his head, and saying the tips of his fingers and palm would roughly describe the area of the gaping wound he saw. 

The area covered by Jenkins’ description clearly covers the upper part of the back of his head, but also extends into the rear part of the top of his head. At least that is how Jenkins’ gestures and description read to me, and what I believe a reasonable person would agree is reasonable description of Jenkins there.

And that large area described by Jenkins is clearly (at least most of it) “higher” in the back of the head than the smaller, lower hole, the “silver dollar” or slightly larger, in the lower occipit after Robinson finished the reconstruction and the torn scalp etc were pulled or stretched down to cover “most” of the gaping larger hole of Jenkins’ splayed-fingers first description that Jenkins said he earlier saw.

Now for the critical issue. Is it possible Keven’s and Sandy’s accusations and fulminations and horrible name-calling of Pat as an out and out l i a r—such a conversation-stopping word if there ever was one—could be over a partly semantic issue?

Is it “lying” to call the “top of the rear of the head” “at the top of the head”?

Is it “lying” to call a gaping wound that covers both the upper part of the rear of the head and part of the rear of the top of the head, the “top” of the head?

I am not assuming Pats description or interpretation is perfect, though his argument that the massive area of the gaping wound is better explained as a tangential hit than a through-and-through shot seems to have a case.

I saw earlier Keven call David von Pein’s completely innocuous description of the head wound in the worst form of identical “liar” language toward von Pein on that point, as Keven uses of Pat. I read that at the time and was as mystified as was von Pein himself at what Keven was “on” about with the horrible name-calling. I honestly could not see what Keven was objecting to in von Pein’s description exactly, underneath the inflamed name-calling. 

This business of a moderator declaring it impermissible for a researcher to express a view or interpretation because it “has been shown wrong” is a slippery slope Sandy. Who decides? Lots of “whatabouts” could be cited on that.

And I know you have claimed you do not object to Pat expressing an interpretation or as his opinion if he called it that. But everyone’s statements here have that as a given implied whether it is explicitly expressed or not. Are you saying everything Pat said would be OK if he (tiresomely, and alone of anyone else) were to preface every single sentence of his existing statements with a rote, pro forma “in my opinion…”?

Why not allow Pats to stand, and Keven’s (though less repetition and links to former in lieu of a hundred lengthy repetitions would be easier on everyone’s eyes from Keven) … and let readers judge for themselves which are the better published or posted arguments or have the stronger claims to truth or accuracy of description of the matter?

Pat Speer claims that James Jenkins was lying by making the following representations of the large head wound he viewed at the beginning of the autopsy of President Kennedy because, according to Mr. Speer, James Jenkins said "NUMEROUS TIMES" prior to 2016 that he had seen "a hole on the top of [JFK's] head and only started referring to "the large gaping wound in the BACK of the head" after William Law, Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser pressured him to do so circa 2015:

JENKINS: "...Now the wound that I saw: [pointing to regions on a skull model] This is the occipital area here, the parietal area here, and in the temporal area here. The wound was here approximately where my finger is [Jenkins points to the upper occipital region of the back of the skull model], and it extended down here [Jenkins indicates a lower region on the occiput with his thumb]. It was about 3 and a half inches long, this being the length [Jenkins demonstrates length on skull model], about 2 inches wide [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. That was where the missing bone was, and the missing tissue was. Okay, it wasn't exactly a square or a round thing. The top of the wound was kind of domed, and it came down and kinda had a little tail type of thing that came into here [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model], and then it kind of came back up in this area [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. 

[See James Jenkins answer at the following link which has been cued up for you https://youtu.be/2U7dXPA_juM?t=1774 ]

 

However, all of James Jenkins's descriptions of the back of the head wound throughout a half a dozen interviews prior to 2016 are consistent with each other, and Jenkins even specifically denied there was a wound in the top of JFK's head to Harrison Livingstone in 1990. Sandy Larsen and I have both asked Mr. Speer to produce just ONE example of the "NUMEROUS TIMES" that Speer claims James Jenkins actually said there was a hole in the TOP of the head, and Speer has not been able to provide even ONE.

The following is a screenshot of fraudulent misrepresentations Speer made on his website in which he claims that James Jenkins was handed a "mannequin head marked on the low back of the head" with which he disagreed by "insisting", according to Speer, "that scalp was attached to the bone" in the area marked on the model, and "that there was thereby no blow-out wound" in that area:

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

The following is the video of the segment of the 1991 Dallas Conference of Medical Witnesses (hosted by Harrison Livingstone) from which Mr. Speer has taken his screenshot and upon which he based his claims about the statements that he alleged that James Jenkins made ("insisting", according to Speer, "that scalp was attached to the bone" in the area marked on the model, and "that there was thereby no blow-out wound" in that area):

The topic of the discussion during the segment of the video from which Speer took his screenshot was the back of the head autopsy photograph, and James Jenkins was asked to explain from the perspective of the autopsists why the photograph does not depict the gaping back of the head wound that had been described by the Parkland doctors. James Jenkins responded that by the time the work of the pathologists was completed -- and skull fragments had been inserted into the wound -- there remained a "silver dollar" sized hole in the same place as the large avulsive wound in Dr. Robert McClelland's drawing "that still had bone and scalp missing." At this point Jenkins was asked to draw the wound he was describing on the mannequin head, and he did so, clearly on the back of the mannequin head, but note that the quality of the video is so poor that the drawing cannot be seen.

As Mr. Speer recited above his screenshot, when Harrison Livingstone asked Jenkins to describe the area on the head that "was opened up" when the body came into the morgue for autopsy, Jenkins replied "[y]es, the tissue was attached and the scalp was attached to bone fragments in all of this area," but Speer goes on to write "[n]ote that Jenkins insisted that scalp was attached to the bone in "this area," and that there was thereby no blow-out wound in "this area."  But that is not at all what Jenkins said! Jenkins said "the scalp was attached to bone fragments in all of this area," and Speer has manipulated Jenkins's words into "scalp was attached to the bone in "this area," and then concluded that Jenkins meant "that there was thereby no blow-out wound in "this area," " which is not even remotely similar to anything that Jenkins had said.

* Thus, it is clear that Speer fraudulently misrepresented that Jenkins was disagreeing with a marking that was already on the mannequin head.

* And it is clear that Speer fraudulently misrepresented that Jenkins was, in any way, saying that there "was no blow out wound" in the area of the back of the head.

______________

Immediately thereafter on Speer's website is the following in which he claims that James Jenkins next demonstrated the location of the large avulsive head wound by placing his hand "on the top right side of his head," going on to then describe the silver dollar sized hole was "after reconstruction."

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

The following is a video of the segment of the 1991 Dallas Conference of Medical Witnesses from which Speer has taken the above screenshot and upon which Speer has based his claims about the statements he alleges that James Jenkins made at that time:

Contrary to Speer's claim that Jenkins had went on to describe the silver dollar sized hole, Jenkins had in truth went on to describe the large avulsive wound he saw at the beginning of the autopsy which he described as "an open gaping wound" approximately the "size of a closed fist," similar "to Dr. McClelland's drawing," except a little higher. Jenkins then went 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.

While Speer had claimed that Jenkins had demonstrated the location of the large avulsive head wound by placing his hand "on the top right side of his head," and presented hazy screenshots that appear to support his claim, the truth of the matter is that Jenkins had twisted his upper body, faced Harrison Livingstone (who was sitting next to him), and placed his hand on the right side of the back of his head, but the resolution of the video he took his screenshots from is so poor, that Speer was able to take advantage of the situation and present them as proof Jenkins had placed his hand on the top of his head.

In fact, as can be seen in the following GIF of the relevant segment of the video, it is clear that Jenkins had actually twisted his upper body, faced Harrison Livingstone (who was sitting next to him), and placed his hand on the right side of the back of his head:

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."

* Thus, it is clear that Speer fraudulently misrepresented that Jenkins was demonstrating the location of the large avulsive head wound by placing his hand "on the top right side of his head."

______________

On his website Mr. Speer presents the following commentary and screenshot from a 1998 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). More recently, Mr. Speer inadvertently revealed that he has the videotape, and I have asked him for access to it in order to put the screen shot he relies upon in its proper context, and to determine whether he darkened the screenshot that he put on his website, and so far Speer has not responded to my request.

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.

 

Now Mr. Doudna, I don't see anything in the above that supports Mr. Speer's assertion that James Jenkins has been lying about the location of JFK's head wound since 2016, do you?

Don't you think that if Pat Speer is going to try to make the case that James Jenkins has been lying to the JFKA research community about the location of JFK's head wound since 2016 that Speer's claims should be subject to close scrutiny, and that if those claims are fraudulent -- as I have shown above that they are -- that Speer should be called out for making said representations, or do you instead wish to endorse Speer's allegations that James Jenkins has been less than forthcoming?

And doesn't it trouble you that Mr. Speer cannot produce even ONE example of what Speer claims were the "NUMEROUS TIMES" that Jenkins said that he saw a hole in the top of JFK's head at the beginning of the autopsy?

Pat Speer makes that claim in the post directly below. Why should he not be called upon to substantiate his claim, especially when the purpose of the claim itself is to substantiate that James Jenkins himself is a prevaricator?

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

 

Edited June 10 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

41 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

You have the tape of William Law's interview of James Jenkins which I have repeatedly stated in the posts on this thread that I have not been able to locate online, and which William Law is also unable to locate, and you have not mentioned that fact?

Could that be because it is during that interview that James Jenkins demonstrates the location of the large head wound, a single screenshot of which you have seized upon for your claim that Jenkins said "NUMEROUS TIMES" that he saw a hole in the top of JFK's head? If we could all view that segment of that interview, we would be able to place the screenshot you are relying upon in its proper context, and you don't want that, do you?

And if we could all view that tape we would all be able to determine whether you darkened the screenshot of James Jenkins placing his fingers on the back of his head so that it instead looks like Jenkins is pointing to the top of his head (as seen directly below), and you don't want that either, do you?

If you would be so kind as to provide us with the link to that video (if it is online) or the file itself (if you just have the actual file) we would be able to answer the questions set forth above, as well as provide same to William Law, who has been searching for his copy of it. Could you do that for us as a professional courtesy please?

 

If you read Law's book you will see that he discusses the wounds and then shows Jenkins the autopsy photos and discusses them some more after that. I was looking for the video from which I took the crappy screen grab and found instead a DVD sold by Lancer of a number of medical presentations, including Law's 2009 presentation in which he showed the second half of the interview--in which Jenkins discussed the autopsy photos.

This verified Horne and Mantik's claim Jenkins had at that time claimed the wound was a round hole.

So you should be happy. I admitted they were correct about something. 

 

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

K., each time you reply you also insert the same text and pictures over and over and over again.  

Don´t you see this is actually harming the point you want to make? You´re losing the jury´s attention... you´d know that, not?

O well, things are going downhill fast when certain words can be used without restriction, when even a mod can call me a bootlicker... anything goes... I don´t care.  This is not the EF I had gotten to know and like anyhow.

 

 

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

Keven you say Pat Speer accused Jenkins of lying but in your massive repeat dump which I just waded through for the nth time I could not find you ever quoted Pat using that word of Jenkins, even though that is your premise for your claimed point. Do you or do you not have a quotation using that word or is that that your paraphrase or interpretation of Pat? Can you clarify in simple declarative sentences? 

Also, I think Jenkins showing a large gaping wound at the top area of the rear of his head is within the semantic meaning of “top” of the head. 

Also, I disagree with your interpretation of Jenkins hand movement meaning, when he moved his hand lower on the back of the head from the higher position on the back of his head. The first, higher spread-hand position was the gaping wound he saw prior to the reconstruction of Robinson and co. Then when he moved his hand lower in the back that is when he referred to the “silver dollar” sized (or close to or a little larger) hole lower down that was after the reconstruction because the loose scalp did not go down that far after covering much or most of the gaping wound higher up. This is what I think Jenkins is saying and meaning.

Either show a quote where Pat called Jenkins a willful liar using that word or retract that attribution to Pat.

Lying does not mean changing a story or saying something that isn’t true (that is called being mistaken), it is doing so willfully in bad faith. Has Pat accused Jenkins of that? I doubt it, notwithstanding your repeated assertions that he has.