Jump to content
The Education Forum

Sandy Larsen

Members
  • Content Count

    4,601
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sandy Larsen

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday 11/18/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

6,165 profile views
  1. Sandy Larsen

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    First, I want to point out that there is testimonial evidence that the bullet did what my hypothesis says it did when it first hit the skull. The autopsists testified before the HSCA that a bullet hit near the EOP tangentially, penetrated the scalp, and tunneled under the scalp for a ways. I believe it was Lt. Lipsey who testified that the autopsists were adamant that the bullet entered near the base of the skull (he referred to the location as "the top of the neck," my paraphrase) and exited the throat. One of the technicians (possibly Lipsey again) testified that at one point the autopsists had a probe running from that location to the throat wound. A tangential strike would have required the bullet to come from high above the head. My hypothesis has it coming from the west end of an upper TSBD floor. Kennedy couldn't have been too far from the building for a strike to be tangential. He must have been hit while behind the Stemmons sign in Zapruder... any time before that and we would have seen him getting hit, and any time after that a tangential hit would not have been possible IMO. My hypothesis has the bullet fragmenting on impact. This (along with the tangential angle) could explain why the bullet didn't just penetrate straight into the skull. Momentum is conserved in a collision, whether the collision is elastic or not. So it is a particularly useful tool in understanding inelastic or complex collisions. (In contrast, with the conservation of ENERGY principle you'd have to account for friction, etc.) Kennedy's head got some of the momentum and the fragments got the remainder. Smaller fragments, with their small momenta, would have been substantially less likely to penetrate the skull. Upon impact, fragments typically go in different directions and the smaller ones give up their kinetic energy quickly due to friction. I just came across this document: https://archive.org/stream/HouseSelectCommitteeOnAssassinations/Volume 7_djvu.txt Dr. Humes first mentions the tunneling on page 251, and then it is discussed among the medical experts panelists beginning on page 254. Dr. Davis, hypothesizes: I think perhaps what we can consider is the problem of the tangential striking bullet which enters the head, tunnels — and that’s already been testified to, and it seems reasonable — strikes the bone tangentially, fragments, and then one part of a fragment can skip out through the scalp again, which may explain this wound we see here in enlargement No. 16. ....So I think all of us who have done a fair number of investigations like this are well aware that a bullet can split into fragments and one fragment can be deflected outward, another fragment can be deflected inward and slightly upward, and even a third fragment can go straight. There’s all sorts of things can happen with bullets when they strike in this manner. So at least Dr. Davis envisions what I do in my hypothesis.
  2. Sandy Larsen

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    There seems to be an inconsistency in your line of argument, which I'll explain here: In 1958 Oswald had two severely tipped molars and a large gap left behind from a tooth extraction. Within five years those defects had resolved themselves. The x-rays show this to be the case. I claimed that this violated the laws of physics because there were no forces applied in a direction that could straighten the teeth up. In response you said that I am not qualified to make such a claim because I am not a dental expert. And then you change subjects and said that an earlier theory of mine -- regarding a bullet trajectory through the head -- is wrong because it violates the laws of physics. My question for you is this: Why do you think that I need to be a dental expert to make my laws-of-physics claim about the teeth, but you do NOT need to be a ballistics expert to make your laws-of-physics claim about the bullet trajectory?
  3. Sandy Larsen

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    How odd... a peer review where the reviewer criticizes the researcher instead of his work.
  4. Sandy Larsen

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    I don't know what you are talking about. What I do know is that whenever I have disagreed with you on something, you have almost invariably taken it personally and proceeded to taunt and smear me.
  5. Sandy Larsen

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    Tom, My curriculum included several physics classes which, taken as a whole, covered every aspect of Newtonian physics with the exception of fluid mechanics. (I did study basic fluid mechanics in a mechanical engineering class I took.) As you know, the laws of physics are universal. There isn't a special set of laws for teeth. Therefore the physics I learned do apply to the movements of teeth. There are no forces in the mouth of an adult which could possibly straighten up teeth that are already tilted down, like the two bottom molars shown here: Mastication forces will certainly serve to keep these teeth from straightening back up. I'm confident that the vast majority of orthodontists would say the same.
  6. Sandy Larsen

    Book Excerpt-Fred Litwin

    [deleted]
  7. Sandy Larsen

    Book Excerpt-Fred Litwin

    I don't understand the point of devoting a full chapter to someone (Garrison in this case) who wasn't even involved in the JFK assassination or investigation. How could that possibly enlighten the readers to anything relevant to the incident?
  8. Sandy Larsen

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    Statistical analysis of the evidence proves that it's virtually impossible that there was only one young Oswald. Your statement is based on a gut feeling. Mine is based on evidence, reasoning, and mathematics.
  9. Sandy Larsen

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    I don't know why you believe that the lone nut scenario is accepted fact. A majority of Americans believe the assassination was a conspiracy. Even the HSCA concluded that.
  10. Sandy Larsen

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    Tracy thinks that I claim to have refuted the conclusions of the Norton Report. That is simply not true. The mandate of Linda Norton's team was to determine whether or not it was Oswald's body resting in his tomb. Ultimately the team concluded that it indeed was Oswald's body. I absolutely agree with the Norton panel's conclusion, that it was Lee Harvey Oswald's corpse in the tomb. In addition, Tracy gives the impression that the Norton team determined that there was "one and only one Lee Harvey Oswald." (See the quote above.) Of course that is not true. Their only job was to determine whether or not the body was Oswald's. What I do in my two presentations is point out conflicts in the dental records and x-rays supplied to the Norton team. The team wasn't checking to see if there might be two Oswalds -- certainly that possibility never even entered their minds. Nevertheless, the team did find some inconsistencies and did their best explaining why they were there. Since such a large amount of evidence indicated that the body was indeed that of Oswald's, they shrugged off the inconsistencies they discovered by calling them "charting errors." They didn't mention in their report the more problematic inconsistencies, those being 1) the "Failed" entry in the "Prosthesis needed?" field, and 2) the lower-right molar (which they label as #31) which is clearly different in the exhumation x-ray as compared to the supposedly same molar in 1958 Marine Corps x-ray.
  11. Sandy Larsen

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    Oh yeah, that's right. Thank god for that. But, of course, your and Aguilar's reviews don't count according to Tracy because you are mere CTers. You aren't credentialed forensic experts. You're just a couple of guys who observed flaws in Reclaiming History and reported on them. (Maybe Tracy will give you a pass because you were able to find a publisher for your book.) Regardless, my point was that Bugliosi didn't submit his book to some experts group to be peer reviewed. (That's my educated guess anyway, so anybody correct me if I am wrong.) But what I really want to know is why Tracy thinks my H&L work needs to be peer reviewed by experts of some kind, but his own writings don't.
  12. Sandy Larsen

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    BTW Tracy, how many of the articles you have written and posted on your website have been peer reviewed by experts? For that matter, has Posner's book been peer reviewed by experts? What about Bugliosi's? Why is it that only my writings need to be peer reviewed by experts??
  13. Sandy Larsen

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    BTW, the reason *I* believe in Harvey and Lee is because of a statistical analysis I performed. It is important to understand that most of the evidence pointing to two Oswalds have unlikely, but nevertheless possible alternative explanations. For example, the school record showing Oswald taking classes at Beauregard Junior High when he was taking classes at New York P.S. #44 could have simply been a blunder made by someone at the main school office. I estimate that such a mistake could be made in one of every 10,000 school records (That's a conservative estimate... I really think the odds of that mistake happening are more like one in 100,000 or more.) One in 10,000 is an impressive number in favor of there being two Oswalds. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So I certainly wouldn't believe there were two Oswalds based on just that one statistic. However, if you consider ALL the evidence of two Oswalds and compute the odds that they can ALL be explained as clerical mistakes and such, you get a much smaller number. For example, if four similar clerical errors were made that are just as unlikely as the school record blunder, the odds of those mistakes happening to a single individual would be one in 10,000,000,000,000,000 (which is calculated as follows: 10,000 x 10,000 x 10,000 x 10,000 ). Or in other words, one in ten thousand trillion. NOW THOSE ARE SOME EXTRAORDINARY ODDS! The population of the world is only 7.6 billion. If we had 1,315,789 Earths (i.e. ten thousand trillion people), odds are that there would be only ONE individual among the inhabitant of ALL of the Earths who has had four such mistakes made in their records! (I know... it's hard to believe. But math doesn't lie.) But we have only one Earth. Which means that the odds of those anomalies in Oswalds records possibly being clerical mistakes are virtually ZERO. Any mathematician would say the same. Some would write it this way: 1 / 10,000,000,000,000,000 ˜= 0 ( ˜= means "approximately equals.") And that is the reason I believe there were two young Oswalds. I'd have to be a numbskull to believe otherwise. (BTW, I'm not saying that nonbelievers are numbskulls. The reason they don't believe there were two Oswalds is because they haven't performed and understood the statistical analysis.)
  14. Sandy Larsen

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    The peers I was referring to are not fellow conspiracy theorists Sandy. Facts are not determined by a bunch of conspiracy theorists on forums who agree with each other. Let me explain how it works. Back in the day, Linda Norton and 3 other experts in forensic pathology (including 2 with dental experience) presented evidence in a scientific journal that the body in the grave in Fort Worth is the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. Your "evidence" is essentially trying to refute that finding. In order to do this, you have to find an expert who agrees with your analysis and is willing to present a paper to a similar scientific journal that is then peer reviewed. But we both know that is not going to happen because any particular observation about this case is not made in a vacuum. The experts I am referring to would ask other questions about the situation as I mentioned in my last post. And when they did that, they would find other significant evidence that pointed away from 2 Oswalds. So you have proven nothing nor will you. Tracy, The problem with your argument and your insistence that I need to have a peer review done by some group of experts is this: The observations I made do not require an expert with specialized knowledge. (With the exception I noted in my post.) They require only an intelligent person willing to review what I wrote. I am an intelligent person and there are intelligent members here on this forum. They (and any other intelligent people) ARE my peers with regard to the observations I made. What do you expect me to do? Find a professional group of intelligent observers and submit my presentations to them?
  15. Sandy Larsen

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    Francois, For one thing, some CTers don't even believe that the assassination was a coup d'etat carried out by the CIA. And some don't believe that Oswald was a CIA operative. I don't know why they don't believe these things given the mountain of evidence pointing to them. But be that as it may.... I believe that -- of all the of CTers who do believe that the CIA carried out the assassination, and that Oswald was a CIA agent -- a majority DO believe that there were two Oswalds, even at a young age. They may not believe everything John Armstrong believes, but they do believe there were two Oswalds, and possibly even more. In other words, that there were Oswald impersonators. Even J. Edgar Hoover and other officials believed there was an Oswald impersonator. I've been privy to some Harvey and Lee communications behind the scenes and I can tell you for a fact that there are a number of well known, highly-respected assassination researchers and authors who believe the H&L theory.
×