Sandy Larsen

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.)

And you come across as a sensationalist. You're like a walking, talking National Enquirer, IMO. I think that Jim D. must have you on Ignore, given that he doesn't respond to your ridiculous charges.

Nope, doesn't work. I'll bet that if you clear your browser's cache, it won't work for you either. (Because the photos might be loading from your cache. I've seen that happen before, many times, back when I used to write HTML.)

OMG, it's really hard to take you seriously when you say things like that.

If you include in your (hypothetical) poll only people who know a lot of the details, I'll bet that over 90% believe there was a conspiracy.

No, it's not, is it. That statement is now an established fact.

I think you should start a new thread. I certainly would like to see people's knowledge and ideas on the topic.

I wonder if Google can translate from Bombast to English? You know, for us regular folk.

I've stated my opinion. I will just observe you and Bill et al. discussing the alleged mole hunt, to see if there could be anything to it IMO.

I already cited examples, after which you doubled down. That's what led me to conclude that you cannot be reasoned with.

According to you, if 65% of people believe Oswald didn’t act alone, the most popular theory is that Oswald acted alone. Let that sink in for a minute.

Netanyahu https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-calls-netanyahus-approach-to-war-in-gaza-a-mistake-deepening-rift-between-the-two-allies

Yes, because False ("Oswald acted alone") = ("Oswald acted with others") = ("Oswald acted in a conspiracy") where False is the inverse logical operator (same as Not).

Clever response! And true.