JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[7forever]

So to sumarise:
No evidence of a second shooter.
No evidence of shots fored anywhere from the front.
No evidence of the autopsy being a fraud.
No evidence of the autopsy photographs being faked, tampered with or altered..
No evidence of the z film being faked, tampered with or altered.
No evidence of the bullets, rifle or fingerprints being planted, let alone the prints being taken from a corpse.
No evidence of (or need for) the back yard photos being "impossible", tampered with, faked, or altered.
No evidence of any kind to support any claim.

Yes robert was right to declare "checkmate" at his own defeat. Shame he thought that meant he could "win".

So to sumarise:
No evidence of any rear headshot.
Clear evidence of shots from the front, rear and right side.
Clear evidence of the autopsy being consistent with missing bone from a shot fired from the front.
evidence of the autopsy photographs being faked, tampered with and altered..
Bullet proof evidence of the z film being faked, tampered with and altered.

No evidence of any kind to support that Oswald was anything other than a joke.

 

[7forever]

So just in case Robert missed it before the material evidence produced for "my" assertions include, but are not limited to:
The rifle
The pistol
The shell casings
The bullet fragments
The z film, polaroid and other photos
The autopsy photographs, "pre" or otherwise, uncropped
The skull fragments, blood stains, finger prints and forensic materials.

Documentary evidence includes the reports, autopsy, statements, interviews, and records kept b efore, during and after the event and course of investigation. These are secondary to material evidence.

Robert produces only selective documentary evidence, out of context, that often failsto support his claim under any form of scrutiny. His material evedince consists entirely of excuses for not producing material evidence.

My lack of credibility should not enter the equation. He either has material evidence to produce, or he has no reason to expect his assertions to convince anybody.

The planted rifle
The pistol Greer shot jfk with
The shell casings which were planted because Greer shot jfk.
The bullet fragments recovered from behind jfk's right eye, where the shot entered.
The z film, and mountains of witnesss testimony convict Greer easily and without confusion of nonsense like Oswald.
The autopsy photographs, "pre" or otherwise, uncropped
The skull fragments, blood stains, finger prints and forensic materials all prove the driver was jfk's real assassin.

Documentary evidence includes the reports, autopsy, statements, interviews, and records kept before, during and after the event and course of investigation.

Your lack of credibility does enter the equation. You have no material evidence to produce because the driver fired the shot over jfk's right eye resulting in the right rear exit.

 

[7forever]

Can you circle the President's wounds in the Zapruder film? You may use your red crayon if you like.

You cannot circle an exit wound at the top right because Humes said that was dislodged scalp with the blatant gaping hole on the right rear.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The planted rifle
The pistol Greer shot jfk with
The shell casings which were planted because Greer shot jfk.
The bullet fragments recovered from behind jfk's right eye, where the shot entered.
The z film, and mountains of witnesss testimony convict Greer easily and without confusion of nonsense like Oswald.
The autopsy photographs, "pre" or otherwise, uncroppedThe skull fragments, blood stains, finger prints and forensic materials all prove the driver was jfk's real assassin.

Documentary evidence includes the reports, autopsy, statements, interviews, and records kept before, during and after the event and course of investigation.

Your lack of credibility does enter the equation. You have no material evidence to produce because the driver fired the shot over jfk's right eye resulting in the right rear exit.

You mean the uncropped photos that show the large exit wounds on the temple? And the entry wound behind JFKs ear? Well done.

Now all you have to do is actually supply the rest of the evidence you list, rather than just asset it "must" exist because you believe it to be.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The only real battle there could ever be is the truth about Greer against the grassy snow job. Oswald's impossible rear shot would be for laughs.

Yes, but the truth about Greer is not what you claim it is.

 

[7forever]

And instead of admitting his mistakes and trying to actually learn about what happen he embraces his ignorance, stubbornness and arrogance like a badge of honor. Strange behavior.

And instead of admitting Oswald was a patsy and accepting the obvious, you embrace ignorance, stubbornness and arrogance like a badge of honor. Typical behavior from a denialist.

 

[7forever]

Yes, but the truth about Greer is not what you claim it is.

The nix film close-up proved Greer's guilt over a year ago. It's silly people like Prey who would be destroyed, not official apologists like most who post here. No americans believed the official story after seeing Z in 1975. It's a myth that was destroyed after its release.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You cannot circle an exit wound at the top right because Humes said that was dislodged scalp with the blatant gaping hole on the right rear.

Can you circle the exit wound to JFK's head in the Zapruder film? You may use Robert's red crayon if you like. You might want to use the better resolution version that I posted in the other thread. And you can circle the gun in Greer's hand at the same time.

Off you go then.

 

[7forever]

Your analysis is irrelevant.

The Warren Commision was debunked in 1979 by the government.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The nix film close-up proved Greer's guilt over a year ago. It's silly people like Prey who would be destroyed, not official apologists like most who post here. No americans believed the official story after seeing Z in 1975. It's a myth that was destroyed after its release.

Can you overturn all the compelling evidence that Robert has posted in this thread?

 

[7forever]

Who cares what eyewitnesses say when they are directly contradicted by physical evidence? Why do you keep ignoring that question, Robert?

The eyewitnesses obliterate the official story and they are confirmed by showing the fake mist in the right front, not right top. There was NO exit wound on the right forehead, but according to the silly Zapruder film, it has to be where the fakery first appears, in the right front.

 

[7forever]

Only one question mark at a time or no dialogue.

The fake evidence says that jfk had missing bone in the right front and temple. That is corroborated by the faked x-rays which show missing bone in those areas. But, Humes does not mention missing frontal bone in the autopsy report, but just downplays the contusion/entrance wound over the right eye. You have fake evidence that disagrees with the autopsy report and most any witness. I used the fakery to understand exactly what happened and didn't.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Here's that video you keep running away from, 7forever.

If you could just circle the gun in Greer's hand, that would be super.

 

[7forever]

Right lateral x-ray shows bullet fragments behind right eye.

The Head Shot from the Front
The autopsy x-rays contain additional evidence of a frontal shot. Wound ballistics expert Dr. Larry Sturdivan told the HSCA that if an exploding or frangible bullet had struck the skull, it "definitely" would have left a cloud of metal fragments close to the point of entrance:

Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. Sturdivan, taking a look at JFK exhibit F-53, which is an X-ray of President Kennedy's skull, can you give us your opinion as to whether the President may have been hit with an exploding bullet?
Mr. STURDIVAN. . . . In those cases, you would definitely have seen a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound. (1 HSCA 401)
Dr. Sturdivan was seemingly unaware of the fact that on the unenhanced autopsy x-rays, a cloud of fragments is visible in the right frontal region, which would indicate that a frangible bullet struck in that area. Apparently Dr. Sturdivan only examined the enhanced x-rays and not the original x-rays. Historian Dr. Michael Kurtz comments on Dr. Sturdivan's testimony:
Sturvidan also stated that Kennedy was not struck in the front of the head by an exploding bullet fired from the grassy knoll. The reason, Sturdivan declared, was that the computer-enhanced x-rays of Kennedy's skull do not depict "a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound." In cases where exploding bullets impact, he asserted that "you would definitely have seen" such a cloud of fragments in the x-ray. Sturdivan's remarks betrayed both his own ignorance of the medical evidence and the committee's careful manipulation of that evidence. Sturdivan saw only the computer-enhanced x-ray of the skull, not the original, unretouched x-rays. Had he seen the originals, he would have observed a cloud of metallic fragments clustered in the right front portion of the head. Furthermore, the close-up photograph of the margins of the large wound in the head shows numerous small fragments. The Forensic Pathology Panel itself noted the presence of "missile dust" near the wound in the front of the head. One of the expert radiologists who examined the x-rays noticed "a linear alignment of tiny metallic fragments" located in the "posterior aspect of the right frontal bone." The chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James J. Humes, remarked about the numerous metallic fragments like grains of sand scattered near the front head wound. The medical evidence, then, definitely proves the existence of a cloud of fragments in the right front portion of Kennedy's head, convincing evidence, according to Sturdivan, that an exploding bullet actually did strike the president there.

 

[7forever]

JFK Wound Witnesses - (ag6)
Note, this is not testimony by people who had a quick look, or were doing something else at the time and happened to see JFK. These are people who were focused specifically on the where the wound was. Their findings are backed by Zapruder which places the hole on the right rear. Not just opinions from washed-up drones.

) KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)

In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)

At a press conference 2&1/2 hours after the shooting Clark said, "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." ("At the White House with Wayne Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas, Texas) This virtually contemporaneous description is not entirely unequivocal. However, if JFK's skull defect were not rearward, it is impossible to imagine Clark would have conjectured that the skull defect was the possible exit site of the neck wound, for Malcolm Perry, MD, who participated with him in the press conference, and had performed a tracheotomy on JFK, had just claimed three times the neck wound was a wound of entrance.

In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton, D. Best Evidence, p. 322)

Under oath and to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." (WC--V6:20) Specter, either inattentive to Dr. Clark's skull wound description or wishing to move the wound more anterior than the eyewitness, neurosurgery professor placed it, later asked Clark, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the of the President's head, with brain protruding..." (WC:6:25) Dr. Clark later located the skull wound to Mr. Specter again, "...in the right occipital region of the President's skull, from which considerable blood loss had occurred which stained the back of his head, neck and upper shoulders." (WC--V6:29)

In answer to a question from Specter about the survivability of Kennedy's head wounding, Clark said: "...the loss of cerebellar (sic) tissue wound probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes wound have been of specific importance..." (WC6:26) That Clark, a neurosurgeon, specified that the occipital lobe of the brain was missing cannot suggest anything but a very posterior defect.

2) ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33) Later he said, "...unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy's life) were of no avail." (Emphasis added throughout) (WC--V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, "...massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss." (WC--V6:34)

McClelland's unwillingness to change his recollection has recently attracted detractors in the aftermath of Charles Crenshaw's book, "Conspiracy of Silence". McClelland told Posner, "I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher." (Posner, G. "CC.", p. 311, paper). To dismiss McClelland, Posner quotes Malcolm Perry, "I am astonished that Bob (McClelland) would say that... It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment." (Posner G. "Case Closed". p. 311, paperback edition.) Perry's own inconsistent and unreliable memory lessens the merit of his opinions of others, as we will see.

The exit wound on the right top/front is complete fiction.

 

[7forever]

Boy, conspiracy people don't like when you point out the problems with the thing that keeps them going eh?

Get a better hobby, build trains or something. You will never "prove" anything cuz there's nothing to prove. A 4 yr old could look at the available evidence and come to the conclusion LHO acted alone.

Boy, government crapologists don't like when you point out the facts that expose official crackpot myths.

Get a better hobby, build trains or something. You will never "prove" anything. A 4 yr old could look at the available evidence and come to the conclusion that Greer shot jfk.

 

[HSienzant]

What is questioned are the actual facts. What is not questioned is the honesty of Mr. Newman.

You apparently think honesty and correctness are synonymous. They are not.
A witness may be honest but mistaken. Nobody is questioning the honesty of Bill Newman. So you're just raising another straw argument.

So what you are apparently doing is again putting the eyewitness testimony above the hard evidence like the films and photographs taken that day. It doesn't work that way.

The films and photographs show where Newman was mistaken in his testimony. You stated he said he was beside the limo for both the second and third shots. Clearly his statement (or your summary of his statement) is wrong, as the films don't show that. The films likewise show you were wrong to put Newman ahead of the limo at the time of the head shot, and wrong to state that Newman couldn't see the back of the head at the time of the head shot. Clearly, the films show Newman was behind and to the right of the limo at the time of the head shot, and therefore Newman had an excellent view of the back of the head.

But Newman only mentioned a shot to the right side of the head, and mentioned no damage to the back of the head, contrary to your contentions that we couldn't name any Dealey Plaza witnesses that failed to mention damage to the back of the head.

What is inconsistent is the fact that Newman said the shot was directly behind where he was standing, and the first shot he placed himself 50 feet before the Limo, the second shot, he placed himself still in front of the Limo. So something is wrong -- the placement of the limo, the shot or shots, and his position. One thing for sure, it's no where near the TSBD.

Again, the films allow us to place Newman with precision in Dealey Plaza (you ignored the films and placed him too far north). The films allow us to place the limo at the time of the head shot, and also show the limo was constantly in motion. So clearly any statement by Newman (or inference by you) that the limo didn't advance between the second and third shot is erroneous. Your statement that Newman was ahead of the limo at the time of the head shot (and your erroneous relative placement of both Newman and the limo) is likewise exposed as false by the existing films taken at the time of the assassination.

So what exactly are you quibbling about concerning the facts concerning Newman?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The Warren Commision was debunked in 1979 by the government.

Negative on that.

 

[7forever]

Robert posted this on a different forum.



I would fix that by striking one word.



Robert is a True Believer. He really doesn't need any proof that there was a conspiracy's to kill JFK but in order to argue on a skeptical forum that his beliefs are true he needs some talking points. All of the "truths" on his flashcards come from his small collection of conspiracy books (totaling no more than 3 or 4 volumes as far as I can tell) or from whatever conspiracy websites he happens to surfing at any given moment.

He also faces a dilemma. Since he has no facts or evidence on his side, he must falsify the actual evidence of the case even if he has to do so in preposterous and ridiculous ways. He must prevaricate. He must dissemble. He must use disingenuous methods like quote mining. All in the higher service of fidelity to his "truth."

The rationalist (the term I prefer to skeptic) on the other hand does not have to stoop to deception. If the conspiracy advocates could come up with some convincing evidence and logical arguments for a conspiracy, the rationalist would concur with their conclusions with no loss of self-esteem. The True Believer, however, would face a loss of self-esteem by admitting his cherished beliefs are wrong because of his emotional investment in his "truth."

That the conspiracy advocates have had almost half a century to prove their case and have utterly failed to do so is telling. That they must resort to dishonestly and denial of reality in the service of their "truth" is merely sad, some would say pathetic.

Speaking only for myself, whether Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter or there was a conspiracy is not a matter of great importance. The evidence points to Oswald as the sole culprit. Robert's frantic, though impassioned, efforts to prove otherwise have failed to impress... to put it mildly.

Walter does not believe Oswald shot jfk, but promotes it publicly. He doesn't need any proof that there wasn't a conspiracy to kill JFK, but in order to argue on a skeptical forum that his beliefs are true he needs some talking points. All of the "lies" on his flashcards come from his small collection of nonsense books or from whatever websites he happens to be surfing at any given moment.

He also faces a dilemma. Since he has no facts or evidence on his side, he must point to the fake evidence of the case even if he has to do so in preposterous and ridiculous ways. He must prevaricate. He must dissemble. He must use disingenuous methods like changing the subject and ignoring whoppers of proof. All in the higher service of fidelity to his "lies."

The rationalist (the term I prefer to skeptic) on the other hand does not have to stoop to deception. If the government crapologists could come up with some convincing evidence and logical arguments for the lone nut, the rationalist would concur with their conclusions with no loss of self-esteem. Walter, is a simple denialist, therefore faces no obvious shame when spewing nonsense about a report that was debunked by the Hsca.

That the kooks have had almost a half century to prove their case and have utterly failed to do so is telling. That they must resort to dishonesty and denial of reality in the service of their "lies" is merely sad and very pathetic.

Speaking only for myself, whether Lee Harvey Oswald fired any shots, he did not fire the fatal shot because Greer did. The evidence proves beyond all doubt that Greer shot jfk. Walter's frantic, though impassioned, efforts to prove otherwise have failed to impress... to put it mildly.

 

[HSienzant]

JFK Wound Witnesses - (ag6)
Note, this is not testimony by people who had a quick look, or were doing something else at the time and happened to see JFK. These are people who were focused specifically on the where the wound was. Their findings are backed by Zapruder which places the hole on the right rear. Not just opinions from washed-up drones.

) KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)

In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)

At a press conference 2&1/2 hours after the shooting Clark said, "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." ("At the White House with Wayne Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas, Texas) This virtually contemporaneous description is not entirely unequivocal. However, if JFK's skull defect were not rearward, it is impossible to imagine Clark would have conjectured that the skull defect was the possible exit site of the neck wound, for Malcolm Perry, MD, who participated with him in the press conference, and had performed a tracheotomy on JFK, had just claimed three times the neck wound was a wound of entrance.

In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton, D. Best Evidence, p. 322)

Under oath and to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." (WC--V6:20) Specter, either inattentive to Dr. Clark's skull wound description or wishing to move the wound more anterior than the eyewitness, neurosurgery professor placed it, later asked Clark, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the of the President's head, with brain protruding..." (WC:6:25) Dr. Clark later located the skull wound to Mr. Specter again, "...in the right occipital region of the President's skull, from which considerable blood loss had occurred which stained the back of his head, neck and upper shoulders." (WC--V6:29)

In answer to a question from Specter about the survivability of Kennedy's head wounding, Clark said: "...the loss of cerebellar (sic) tissue wound probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes wound have been of specific importance..." (WC6:26) That Clark, a neurosurgeon, specified that the occipital lobe of the brain was missing cannot suggest anything but a very posterior defect.

2) ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33) Later he said, "...unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy's life) were of no avail." (Emphasis added throughout) (WC--V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, "...massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss." (WC--V6:34)

McClelland's unwillingness to change his recollection has recently attracted detractors in the aftermath of Charles Crenshaw's book, "Conspiracy of Silence". McClelland told Posner, "I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher." (Posner, G. "CC.", p. 311, paper). To dismiss McClelland, Posner quotes Malcolm Perry, "I am astonished that Bob (McClelland) would say that... It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment." (Posner G. "Case Closed". p. 311, paperback edition.) Perry's own inconsistent and unreliable memory lessens the merit of his opinions of others, as we will see.

The exit wound on the right top/front is complete fiction.

1. Zapruder put the damage on the right top of the head.
2. Dr. Crenshaw put the damage on the right side of the head. Quoting from his book:

• Pg 2: "The entire right hemisphere of President Kennedy's brain was obliterated. . . . "
• Pg 78: "Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear."
• Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater, an empty cavity."
• Pg 87: (Quoting Kemp Clark): "My God, the whole right side of his head is shot off... We've got nothing to work with."
• Pg 89: "... there is still nothing that can save a victim who loses the entire right side of his brain."

The above quotes are consistent with the damage we see in the autopsy photos and x-rays.
3. Other witnesses in Parkland - like Dr. Burkley and Malcolm Kilduff - mentioned damage to the right side of the head, not the back of the back. Dr. Jenkins placed the damage on the right side of the head: "There was a great laceration on the right side of the head..."
4. Numerous witnesses in Dealey Plaza (in addition to Zapruder) mentioned damage to the right side of the head, not the back of the head. Bill Newman is the first on the list. But certainly not the last.
5. The autopsy determined the source of the shots was above and behind JFK. That is consistent with all the above witnesses and with the physical evidence found that day and the first day eyewitness testimony of numerous witnesses that put a rifle in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the Texas School Book Depository.
6. NO --- I repeat --- NO witnesses put a gun on the grassy knoll on 11/22/63.
7. NO --- I repeat --- NO witnesses put a gun in the hands of the driver of the President's limo on 11/22/63.

Any conclusions that JFK was shot from the knoll or by the driver is contrary to all the hard evidence in this case and is based on poor copies of the Zapruder film being mis-interpreted. What some people see as a gun in the hands of the driver (Agent Greer) is actually the sunlit forehead of the passenger (Agent Kellerman).