Sandy Larsen

I am all for anti-war protests on campus. (And off campus.) But I have a suspicion that the police were called in because some of the protesters are disrupting normal campus functioning. A little like the Golden Gate Bridge being shut down due to protests there last week.

I predict that the new lettering system for generations -- Greek -- won't make it past Generation Beta. (Generation Gamma, anybody?) Americans aren't into foreign alphabets... with the exception of scientists, physicists, and engineers. I'll bet that after Generation Beta, Generation C will be used. And alternate names Generations A and B will be used for Generations Alpha and Beta.

I've always had a low opinion of Giuliani, even prior to 9/11. But it's only in the last several years that I've realized he's an idiot.

@Bill Simpich, Tommy Graves said that he miswrote something in this. Where he wrote: "...but hid OS documents on Oswald from the Church Committee and the Warren Commission..." he meant to write: "...but hid OS documents on Oswald from the Church Committee and the HSCA..." The changed word is in bold (mine). I will correct the original.

The "solid scientific evidence of a tangential wound" that Pat posted has nothing to do with Kennedy. It's somebody else's wound. Keven has presented Robinson's ARRB testimony explaining what that triangular piece is, at least the part of it above the ear, as indicated in his drawing below. Though apparently he recalled its locationto be a couple centimeters nearer the ear than its actual location. He said that it was a flap of skin. As well as the location of a 1/4 inch wound. Neither Keven nor I have commented on what the beliefs of any authors are. Only Pat has done that. To which I've warned readers not to believe what Pat says about other researchers because of his history of misrepresenting the evidence and what the researchers believe. Keven went one step further and proved that what Pat said were misrepresentations. No big surprise for me. That was Dr. Paul Peters' judgment after carefully observing the autopsy photographs. Why do you consider a medical doctor to be "utterly unqualified?" (See the video in the OP.) Oh, I know. Because his opinion contradicts your preconceived notions. You have already admitted to being a closed-minded ideologue regarding the authenticity of the photos, films, and x-rays. So why not regarding this incision (as described by Dr. Peters) as well?

Apparently Pat thinks that it is Horne himself relaying the above lines.

What is a Kent?

It's bizarro only in your mind, Pat. If Horne told the story, it would make perfect sense.

Unlike Horne, Pat Speer routinely kicks inconvenient facts under the rug. In contrast, Doug Horne studies all the facts he can find and comes up with a cogent hypothesis that explains it all. What Pat scoffs at here is too much for his thought process to handle. But for most intelligent people it makes perfect sense given what evidence we have. JFK's body was indeed delivered to Bethesda Hospital well before it's official arrival time. Most likely it was flown in by helicopter from the airport. It arrived in a plain shipping casket, not the ornate bronze one that it was put in at Parkland.

This is a perfect example of Pat Speer slandering a researcher. First he misrepresents the researcher's evidence. Then he states the researcher's conclusion based on that evidence... which of course makes no sense due to Pat's misrepresentation. And so, he concludes, there is something wrong with the researcher's thinking.

Yeah, but that wasn't till 1966. When Roselli claimed that Castro had sent some hitmen to the U.S. to kill Kennedy in retaliation for him trying to kill Castro. Which, BTW, I don't believe given that I believe the assassination plotters were CIA. And the CIA certainly wouldn't have acquired their hitmen from Castro. That's interesting. I'd like to see that report. I think it is likely that LBJ trusted what Hoover had to say about there being a real possibility of a communist plot. Hoover said publicly very early on (Nov. 25?) that Oswald was the lone gunman. But on Nov. 29 he said the following to LBJ by phone: "This angle in Mexico is giving us a great deal of trouble because the story there is of this man Oswald getting $6,500 from the Cuban embassy and then coming back to this country with it. We're not able to prove that fact, but the information was that he was there on the 18th of September in Mexico City and we are able to prove conclusively he was in New Orleans that day. Now then they've changed the dates. The story came in changing the dates to the 28th of September and he was in Mexico City on the 28th. Now the Mexican police have again arrested this woman Duran, who is a member of the Cuban embassy... and we're going to confront her with the original informant, who saw the money pass, so he says, and we're also going to put the lie detector test on him."

If that is true, Captain Fritz ignored LBJ's order. Excerpted from the report of the Oswald interrogation that took place in Fritz's office on 11/24/1963 at 9:30 AM: This interview started at approximately 9:30 a.m. on Sunday, November 24, 1963. The interview was conducted in the office of Captain WIll Fritz of the Homicide Bureau, Dallas Police. Present at the interview in addition to Oswald were Captain Fritz, Postal Inspector Holmes, SAIC Sorrels, Inspector Kelley and four members of the Homicide Squad. The interview had just begun when I arrived and Captain Fritz was again requesting Oswald to identify the place where the photograph of him holding the gun was taken. Captain Fritz indicated that it would save the Police a great deal of time if he would tell them where the place was located. Oswald refused to discuss the matter. Captain Fritz asked, "Are you a Communist?" Oswald answered, "No, I am a Marxist but I am not a Marxist Leninist." Captain Fritz asked him what the difference was and Oswald said it would take too long to explain it to him. Oswald said that he became interested in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee while he was in New Orleans; that he wrote to the Committee's Headquarters in New York and received some Committee literature and a letter signed by Alex Hidell. He stated that he began to distribute that literature in New Orleans and it was at that time that he got into an altercation with a group and he was arrested. He said his opinions concerning Fair Play for Cuba are well known; that he appeared on Bill Stukey's television program in New Orleans on a number of occasions and was interviewed by the local press often. He denies knowing or ever seeing Hidell in New Orleans, said he believed in all of the tents of the Fair Play for Cuba and the things which the Fair Play for Cuba Committee stood for, which was free intercourse with Cuba and freedom for tourists of both countries to travel within each other's borders. Among other things, Oswald said that Cuba should have full diplomatic relationship with the United States. I asked him if he thought that the President's assassination would have any effect on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. He said there would be no change in the attitude of the American people toward Cuba with President Johnson becoming President because they both belonged to the same political party and the one would follow pretty generally the policies of the other . He stated that he is an avid reader of Russian literature whether it is communistic or not; that he subscribes to "The Militant," which, he says, is the weekly of the Socialist party in the United States (it is a copy of "the Militant" that Oswald is shown holding in the photograph taken form this effects at Irving Street). At that time he asked me whether I was an FBI Agent and I said that I was not that I was a member of the Secret Service. He said when he was standing in front of the Textbook Building and about to leave it, a young crew-cut man rushed up to him and said he was from the Secret Service, showed a book of identification, and asked him where the phone was. Oswald said he pointed toward the pay phone in the building and that he saw the man actually go to the phone before he left. I asked Oswald whether as a Marxist he believed that religion was an opiate of the people and he said very definitely so that all organized religions tend to become monopolistic and are the causes of a great deal of class warfare. I asked him whether he considered the Catholic Church to be an enemy of the Communist philosophy and he said well, there was no Catholicism in Russia; that the closest to it is the Orthodox Churches but he said he would not further attempt to have him say something which could be construed as being anti-religious or anti-Catholic. Capt. Fritz displayed an Enco street map of Dallas which had been found among Oswald's effects at the rooming house. Oswald was asked whether the map was his and wheter he had put some marks on it. He said it was his and remarked "My God don't tell me there's a mark near where this thing happened." The mark was pointed out to him and he said "What about the other marks on the map?I put a number of marks on it. I was looking for work and marked the places where I went for jobs or where I heard there were jobs." Since it was obvious to Captain Fritz that Oswald was not going to be cooperative, he terminated the interview at that time.

I imagine that LBJ didn't want to make a rush decision on retaliating against a foreign nation, particularly against a nuclear power like the Soviet Union. At the same time, Katzenbach and others were advising against blaming any conspiracy whatsoever, and placing the blame squarely on LHO. That probably seemed like an easy way out to LBJ. If it later turned out there was indeed a communist conspiracy, he could always retaliate in some fashion at that time.

Given Pat's history of slandering both witnesses and researchers, and Doug Horne's history of carefully studying a situation and then providing an analysis that makes a great deal of sense... I think it would be wise for the reader to take Pat's paraphrase of Horne's analysis with a grain of salt and to reserve judgement till after reading Horne's actual analysis.

I agree with Peter Dale Scott on that. The plotters' hoped that Johnson would decide to invade Cuba in retaliation for the assassination. (Or even a first nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, at a time when it was thought that America would prevail.) This is Phase 1. But if Johnson chose to reject the Cuban/Soviet evidence, the plotters wanted to make sure that the Johnson Administration could blame it on Oswald alone. The reason being so the investigation would focus on Oswald and not on identifying the real plotters (CIA elements). For that purpose, the plotters made arrangements in advance to alter photos and films as necessary and as possible, and to control the autopsy. All so that the evidence would indicate gunshots only from the rear. That explains how the medical and photographic coverup could be done as quickly as it was! (I used to believe that this was a part of the LBJ/FBI coverup, rather than part of the plotters' plan. But that idea made no sense because the LBJ administration couldn't possibly have acted so fast.)