Sandy Larsen

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sandy Larsen

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday 11/18/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,156 profile views
  1. Tommy, I certainly wouldn't say it counts for nothing. You told your story and I told mine. There is, of course, a reason my ex had/has no accent whereas the Toth brothers did/(do?). Maybe the Toth brothers spent a lot of time at home with their parents when they were young. That could explain it. My ex was adopted and had to speak English. (By the time we dated she'd forgotten much of her Korean.) Or maybe my ex just had an aptitude for learning languages. I don't know if there is any way of knowing or approximating that. You should ask Jim.
  2. My ex-wife came to America from South Korea when she was about 7 years old. She spoke flawless English when I first met her about three years later. No accent. I think kids pick up new languages quickly.
  3. I believe that that was said to be the case in the same document you posted that reveals the cryptonym.
  4. Jim, I certainly don't trust the HSCA's report. The report states that the entrance wound to the back of Kennedy's head was near the cowlick. That in spite of the fact that the autopsy docs themselves all said it was three inches lower, near the external occipital protuberance! That tells me everything I need to know about the HSCA and their report. So I, like you, don't trust the statement in the report that those 18 or 20 CIA employees were interviewed and that they denied Wilcott's assertions. (Where the heck did those numbers -- 18 or 20 -- come from anyway?) And you're right... the report misrepresents Wilcott's testimony. Wilcott DID believe there was an Oswald project. He believed that some of the talk was speculation, but not all of it. [BTW, isn't it true that Wilcott did say in his testimony that he couldn't remember the project's cryptonym?] (Already answered.)
  5. Yeah! Some people are such staunch believers in something that they will deny ANYTHING that contradicts their belief. Even if it's right in front of their eyes. For example, I've had atheists attack some of my religious beliefs. (And BTW, I was agnostic most my life. My best friend is an atheist. All my other friends are religious. I have no problem with people of any belief system.) This has happened more than once, where they will bring up the topic of evolution, I think hoping to trap me. (I believe in evolution BTW, though not sure about it producing new species. Seems logical though.) They have REALLY strong feelings about evolution and they will point out that it has been proven true. I will remind them of two things: 1) Like everything else in science, evolution is a theory; and 2) creation of a new species has never been observed... and observation is one of the requirements of the scientific method. (BTW, speciation in plants is commonplace. I'm talking about speciation in animals.) They refuse to believe both those statements, even though they are true, can easily be verified, and in fact I did show them where the scientific community backs me up. In return they linked to articles that they think proved their point. But clearly they hadn't read the articles or they'd know that they didn't agree with their contentions. I had some Tea Party friends (who now hate me after we had an agreed-upon debate) who believe all kinds of untrue things about Barrack Obama. Very much the same story. BTW the atheists I debated (whom I didn't really know, but just debated online after they criticized my beliefs) also ended up hating me. Which just goes to show that the old saying is true... one should never discuss religion or politics.
  6. That "debunking" was by Dave Perry. Sandy. Have a look at this critique of his report. Hey Ray, thanks! I assumed that the debunking by Dave Perry was solid because in his article he informs his readers: "In the end I found the police report rife with errors and detailed my findings in A CTKA Story " Naturally, if his findings were reported in a CTKA article, then they must be pretty solid. Right? After reading your post I decided to check out that CTKA article. Well guess what happens if you click that link? You don't go to a CTKA article... you go to another page on Dave Perry's website where he has written another article... titled "A CTKA Story." What a friggin l.i.a.r this man is! I am disgusted by this man. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up. (I am so angry!)
  7. What a great document that would be, if it were real. Apparently it's been debunked:
  8. Jim, just to be clear... Did the HSCA report that they interviewed the 18 (or 20) CIA personnel about Wilcott's allegations? (I'm not sure if you're saying that the HSCA didn't interview them, or that the HSCA did report that they interviewed them but that there is no evidence that they really did.)
  9. It is this kind of writing that tells me that Tracy has no interest in learning the truth. His aim is to discredit anybody whose testimony contradicts what he believes to be the truth. (I have no idea how Tracy derives "his" truth. Maybe he is one who believes everything the government reports.) And his weapon of choice is character assassination. This is how I knew he was an LNer.
  10. Tommy, I believe the very same thing. I'll just note -- for the sake of others reading your post -- that your account of what happened is based on the FBI's first day report of Lovelady's statement (which you posted), Shelley's first-day statement, and evidence we see in the Darnell/Couch clip. (Note that our analysis of that evidence is supported by statements from Gloria Calvery and others, in conjunction with a frame from the Zapruder film. This analysis will be presented in coming days.)
  11. I have an staunch LN friend who said he'd become a CTer if there were an official document showing that Nagell had the ID card when arrested.
  12. My highlights in red: Sandy, Regarding the use of the word "Spanish man" to describe the way someone, who happens to speak that language, looks -- since most of the people who live in Spain are "White" like you and me, and are, therefore, difficult to distinguish from most other people living in European countries or North America, Australia, New Zealand, European Russia, etc, it's obvious to me that the person who said or wrote "Spanish man" should have said "Mexican-looking" or "South American-looking" or "Hispanic-looking," or something like that, instead. Living next to Mexico as I do, I hear people make the same mistake in describing someone from time to time. As regards Morales' height, I believe he was an athletic 5'10" (he had run track and, according to his friend Ruben Carbajal, been a football star in high school). I'll try to look up his documented height and post it here. When I do, please bear in mind that the photographer, Jim Doyle, was only 14 years old at the time, so all of the adults around him were taller than he was, I would imagine. Tommy I think it's clear from the context of Billings' notes that they were using the word "Spanish" instead of Hispanic. The term Hispanic wasn't widely used in America until it was adopted by the U.S. government in 1970. I suspect that "Spanish" was often used before the term "Hispanic" became widely known. I, like you, have also heard people use Spanish instead of Hispanic. BTW, do you have any idea why they referred to the guy as shepherd?
  13. You're making a good case here, Tommy. Summarizing the evidence: Regarding alleged David Morales observing Oswald leafleting in NO (in the Jim Doyle film): Photoanalysis shows he is wearing a (probable) camera with its strap around his neck, something Morales was known to do. He's husky, has black hair, and wiry hair, like Morales. According to Garrison investigator Richard Billings, a "Spanish" man with a one inch scar in his his left eyebrow, wearing a coat and tie, was observing and photographing Oswald leafleting on August 9. (The man was seen by Bringuier and Miguel Cruz.) This description matches Morales perfectly, the scar making the identification most likely. The description of this "Spanish" man matches favorably the alleged Morales we see in the film. (The "Spanish" man has got to be there in the film somewhere... if alleged Morales isn't the "Spanish" man (who likely is Morales), then who in the film is??) Garrison investigator Richard Billings asked in his notes if the "Spanish" man (who likely is Morales) isn't the dark complected guy who drove the tan station wagon. Again this matches alleged Morales we see in the film. This is very, very strong evidence IMO. I believe it's a match. The only reasonable question I've seen is about Morales's height. Does the height of alleged Morales we see in the film match Morales's known height? We should at least take a look at this and see if there is an obvious discrepancy. I don't believe there will be.
  14. Well then you've got me confused. Where do you think the strap is? Your comment ("make the strap 'stand out' from his skin more.") makes it sound like you believe the strap is against the skin. If so, I disagree with you. I don't see it there. On the other hand, if you believe the strap is where I believe it is, resting on top of the jacket collar, then why would you want to "make the strap 'stand out' from his skin more?"
  15. I guess you are saying I don't have any common sense which I don't appreciate and see as unnecessary. I didn't have any particular person in mind when I said that. But really, Tracy, if you're going to hang out at a CT website, you really should expect to see comments like that. Even LNers here say similar things about we CTers. And, BTW, I stand by what I said. Except that I would change "would" to "should." And I would qualify it to include only informed people who have given it some thought. "Any informed person with a lick of common sense, having given it some thought, should know that the CIA wouldn't allow any of its employees to corroborate Wilcott." How? They instruct them not to corroborate Wilcott. Or, more simply, they'd remind them of their vows of silence, punishable by imprisonment. Wilcott was either a very brave man or very naive one. Judging by some of his writings I read, I think it's the former.