Sandy Larsen

22 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

The bottom line here is, did Dino Brugioni "mis-remember" what he says he saw.  He said that he was shocked and everyone gasped at the head shot(s).  You don't mis-remember what you've been shocked by.

Horne asked Brugioni how sure he was -- on a scale of 1 to 10 -- that the flying debris he'd seen in '63 was far different than what he was seeing in the extant copy.

His reply? Ten.

22 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

The film was altered.

Of course it was! Anybody with good eyes and good sense can see that.

Look at other photos of JFK and Jackie that day in Dallas and you will see that her hair that day was darker than his. Then look at Z313, at the back of JFK's head. Compare how dark that is to the same side of Jackie's head. Amazingly the "hair" is darker on Kennedy's head.

Somebody has darkened the back of Kennedy's head.

That should be proof enough for the anti-alterationists, given that they believe in photographic evidence over witnesses.

Though the color logarithmic scan that Keven has posted makes the alteration obvious.

In the Brugioni video he suggested the use of a densitometer to prove the alteration. I recall that member Andrej Stancak once did just that, and did confirm it was an alteration.

Of course, it's impossible to change the minds of anti-alterationists, with their tightly held preconceived notions.

11 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

Revoking posting privileges (even for a short period of time) of someone because you think they are WRONG on the facts is the wrong way to handle an internet debate. They proper way is to put up your countervailing material and let the READER DECIDE who has the better case.

Robert,

Everybody knows that it is wrong for a moderator to issue a penalty to  a member just for disagreeing with them. I mean, duh!

But that is not what happened with Pat Speer when he was telling everybody that James Jenkins claimed that the gaping head wound was at the top of the head. What happened is that another member, Keven Hofeling, noticed that what Pat said was factually incorrect.

Keven set out to prove that what Pat said was untrue. I, as moderator, studied Keven's post and found that he was right, that James Jenkins didn't say what Pat claimed he said. He in fact said quite the opposite!

There is a forum rule against posting demonstrable falsehoods. I was asked to take action against Pat for violating that rule.

I informed Pat that Jenkins said the wound was on the back of the head, not the top. But that he (Pat) could continue saying what he claimed about Jenkins' position if he could show me any instances of Jenkins saying the wound was indeed at the top. Pat couldn't.

I then asked Pat to correct the falsehood he was trying to pass off as being a fact. He wouldn't.

Finally I suggested to Pat that he preface his Jenkins claim with words such as "I contend" or "I believe." That way, he could say whatever he wanted and it wouldn't be violating a forum rule.

No matter what I said, Pat refused to budge. He insisted on posting his falsehood, and so I penalized him.

[deleted]

On 8/1/2024 at 6:15 PM, Pat Speer said:

There is no indication whatsoever that people like Carrico, Jenkins, Sibert, and Hill ever inspected  the low occipital area of JFK's skull and thought it was missing. 

Oh really? Here's what they said. (Note that the words occipital and cerebellar refer to areas LOW in the back.)

CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD:

In his first mention of JFK's skull wound to the Warren Commission on 3/25/64, Carrico said, "There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue." (6H3) And... "The (skull) wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura." (6H6)

MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD:

In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)

FBI AGENT JAMES SIBERT:

In an affidavit prepared for the HSCA Sibert claimed, "The head wound was in the upper back of the head.", and "...a large head wound in the upper back of the head with a section of the scull (sic) bone missing..." (HSCA REC # 002191)

SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL:

Described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed...There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." (WC--V2:141)

On 8/1/2024 at 6:15 PM, Pat Speer said:

What they saw, IMO, is what is shown on the right below...

this...

They all described a gaping hole on the back of the head, with both doctors saying it was low enough for cerebellum tissue to be dripping from it.

In contrast, Pat says that what they saw was the back-of-the-head with no wound whatsoever.

Yeah, right Pat. And I have some beach-front property here in Utah that I'd like to sell you.

1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:

How do the implications of what you suggest with regard to alteration differ from Roger, Horne, etc.?

I'm not intimately familiar with the differences of opinion between us all.

Some CTers believe that the assassination plotters planned for Oswald to take the blame. Others believe that it was the U.S. government who made that decision.

What I believe is that the plotters made it appear that Oswald was paid by Cuba to assassinate Kennedy. This was done to set up a pretext for an American invasion of Cuba. But it had a backup plan... should LBJ choose not to invade Cuba, the plotters made it easy for him to blame Oswald alone and keep the Cuban conspiracy secret.

What the plotters did to make blaming Oswald alone easy, was to control the Best Evidence so that it looked like the work of a lone gunman. Controlling the Best Evidence meant controlling the autopsy and any films that gave good views of the gunshot wounds. The only film that fit that bill was the Zapruder film.

The autopsy and the Zapruder film needed to show shots only from the rear.

4 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

5 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

If Lundahl and McCone were not in on the plot, weren’t they shocked by the conclusion of multiple shooters from the briefing boards?

4 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Careful, Kevin. You're making far too much sense for the alterationists on this thread :).

Perhaps. But keep in mind that you're debating just one CTer... Roger Odisio. There are others like myself who think that Horne's Hawkeyeworks  theory is basically correct, but who think that the plotters built into their plan both a communist conspiracy and a lone gunman angle. (The Peter Dale Scott Phase-1 / Phase-2 theory.)

1 hour ago, Steve Roe said:

Sandy, take a deep breath and answer this. Shouldn't everyone here apply the same standard to your "Harvey and Lee" belief?

Steve,

There is a great deal of evidence indicating Lee Harvey Oswald was in two locations at the same time on multiple occasions. And was both 5' 9" and 5' 11" in height while in the Marine Corps, but almost never 5' 10". And was missing two teeth and at the same time still had all his natural teeth.

There is substantial corroboration for much of this evidence

Harvey & Lee is a theory that explains this contradictory evidence. Researchers are free to come up with their own theories. But so far I've seen nothing that makes as much sense as Harvey &Lee.

4 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

On 7/31/2024 at 8:36 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Only a fool would ridicule a reasonable theory backed by solid evidence.

4 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

I agree Sandy, that certainly applies to the mountain of solid incriminating evidence against Oswald, the murderer of President Kennedy and JD Tippit.

Problem is, Steve, not all evidence is "solid evidence." In a cover-up, you first need to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Years ago I reconstructed a Tippit shooting timeline based on times from multiple sources. It is documented here:

As I describe in the post, it consists of a preliminary timeline, followed by a timing analysis, and then the final timeline.

Tippit was shot at 1:06 PM.

T.F Bowley calls the shooting in on Tippit's radio at 1:09 PM.

The ambulance arrives at 1:10 PM.

Officer Croy arrives at 1:11 PM.

The ambulance departs at 1:11 - 1:12 PM.

Officer Poe and Patrolman L.E. Jez arrive at 1:12 - 1:13 PM, and interview an excited Helen Markham.

31 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound.

Only a fool would ridicule a reasonable theory backed by solid evidence.

Use of a high-tech weapon isn't an unreasonable theory.

2 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Trying to follow things here, I never studied the Tippit case in great detail.

Jean,

If you go down this rabbit hole, you're going to find out everybody's timing is off by something like 8 minutes. Ultimately you'll come to the conclusion that the timestamps on the DPD Dictabelts are off by that same amount. That is to say, the coverup artists added those minutes to the Dictabelt recordings.

Once you compensate for that by subtracting 8 minutes from what is shown on the Dictabelt transcripts, then all is well and everybody's timing works out.

Except that Oswald cannot have been there in time to shoot Tippit. Which is fine because he wasn't. Apparently the coverup artists added those extra minutes to give Oswald time to arrive and shoot Tippit.

BTW, here's an example of times being inconsistent: The doctors at the hospital tried to resuscitate Tippit. They couldn't, so they pronounced him dead-on-arrival at 1:15 PM. Problem is, according to the Dictabelt timestamps, Tippit hadn't even been picked up by the ambulance by then.

On 7/30/2024 at 12:45 PM, Kevin Balch said:

What is the probability that the cleanup squad could murder 120 of the 1400 witnesses between 1963-1978 and not get caught once? Other than Jack Ruby whose murder of Oswald IS suspicious.

Do you know the total number of deaths among the 1400 witnesses between 1963-1978? I ask because there are reliable total death probabilities from the population at large that should be applicable to a population of 1400 witnesses (typically a very good sample size for political polling. 

I was impressed with the statistical data that you found. You want to use that data to perform statistical predictive analytics.

To do what you are trying to do would require a good deal of data collection, careful work, and some experience in statistical analytics.

In contrast, my statistical analysis is a simple formula used to calculate the probability of an outcome of repetitive events each having a binomial probability. To do this, all you need to know is the probability of a single event (e.g. 1/2 for a coin toss), how many events there will be, and what the desired outcome will be.

On 7/30/2024 at 9:32 AM, Pat Speer said:

1. Cognitive psychologists and historians do not pretend people's perceptions are a roll of the dice or a turn of a card. They do not estimate "probabilities" of truth based on the number of people who have at one point in their life made a certain claim. 

Look Pat, everybody knows that the more corroboration there is among witnesses, the more likely it is the corroborators got it right!

The only thing my mathematical analysis does is give us the odds of a corroboration of witnesses being right. (Or, conversely, wrong.)

Unfortunately for you and your anti-alterationist followers, your preconceived notions and biases have forced you into an illogical corner. You are forced to believe that most the gaping head wound witnesses -- those who corroborate one another-- are wrong!

On 7/30/2024 at 9:32 AM, Pat Speer said:

2. Your numbers are skewed. You deliberately exclude the statements of men like Jenkins and Carrico, who would come to claim they were mistaken, and the testimony of men like Clark, who said their recollections were consistent with the official story. 

My numbers are the most reliable because I choose from each witness their earliest recollections. In contrast to you, who waits for witnesses to change their minds based on (altered) autopsy photos shown to them by Gerald Posner or some other external influence.

On 7/30/2024 at 9:32 AM, Pat Speer said:

3. You perhaps inadvertently engage in a bait-and-switch. You use the statements of people stating the wound was high on the back of the head to debunk photos you think show a wound on the top of the head, and then claim their statements support the work of men like Mantik and Horne, who hold that the wound was low on the back of the head. 

First, I hardly have anything to do with Mantik or Horne or what their theories say. I've never bought or read a book by either one. (Maybe you haven't noticed, but I haven't been engaging in the Horne/HawkeyeWorks debate going on in the other thread.)

If I happen to believe some of the same stuff they do, it is only because I and they see a lot of the same evidence. And so it's not surprising that we end up coming up with similar conclusions.

As for your bait and switch charge against me, it is nonsense. No two witnesses place the gaping wound in precisely the same place as any other witness, nor give identical sizes.  Some variation between witnesses is to be expected, but for some reason you make a big deal about it. As for me, I believe the wound was located and sized at roughly the average of the locations and sizes given by the witnesses.

On 7/30/2024 at 9:32 AM, Pat Speer said:

4. You obsessively attack those who agree with me by claiming they are "followers" when, in fact, they have just followed common sense.

You are the de facto leader of the anti-alterationists on the forum.

They all deserve to be debated/attacked for holding the irrational belief that photos or films wouldn't be altered in a government coverup. It is because of that irrational belief that you guys  have painted yourself into the ridiculous corner of believing the vast majority of the wound witnesses mass hallucinated a gaping wound on the back of the head.

On 7/30/2024 at 9:32 AM, Pat Speer said:

You failed to realize that Horne is on the fringe, that relatively mainstream CTs like Aguilar and Thompson think his theories are mostly nonsense, and that the Fetzer-Mantik-Horne wing holding that everything has been altered by the deep state is currently aligning itself with the Neo-fascists. 

I think I'm pretty close to mainstream in my JFKA thinking. When I watch JFK: Destiny Betrayed, I don't notice anything I disagree with.

I DO notice that Jim DiEugenio agrees with me on the location of the gaping head wound (back of head) and does disagree with you.

2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

With all respect Sandy, your opinion on all this is not worth much. You have done no research or reading or study on cognitive psychology and have made up for your own gratification and amusement that one can cherry-pick statements from some people and calculate the odds of them being wrong or not wrong and then use this calculation to determine the truth. 

My statistical analysis has nothing to do with forensics. It is a purely mathematical analysis that has been proven to be correct... mathematically correct.

The only thing my statistical analysis does is calculate the odds of so many witnesses being wrong (which is what Pat claims) and yet corroborating one another.

Suppose you had 40 coins and you tossed them all. Would you be surprised if, say, 18 came up heads and 22 came up tails? No, you wouldn't.

But would you be surprised if all 40 coins came up heads (or tails)? I sure would be!

There is a formula that calculates the odds of a specified number of heads (or tails) that will come up. It is called the binomial distribution formula, and there are numerous such calculators online that can perform the calculation for you. (Here is one.)

I just used the calculator to determine what the odds are of all 40 coins coming up heads. The answer is one in 1,111,000,000,000. This means that you will have to toss the 40 coins 1.111 trillion times in order to expect all 40 coins to come up heads JUST ONE TIME.

Those odds would be the same for all 40 head wound witnesses to be wrong, and yet all say the wound was on the back of the head.

Hopefully by now the reader should be understanding the problem this statistical analysis presents for Pat's belief. It's virtually impossible for so many witnesses to be wrong and yet at the same time corroborate one another!

Now, there IS one hope remaining for Pat. And that is the fact that not every witnesses said they the gaping wound on the back of JFK's head. Approximately 5 of the witnesses said the wound was on the top or side of the head. We need to calculate the odds of 35 of 40 coins coming up heads.

I just ran the numbers and the calculator gave the odds being one in 1,446,537. That is also the odds of 35 wound witnesses being wrong, but still corroborating one another.

So clearly Pat and his followers have reason to worry about their beliefs. The rest of us don't have a problem because we don't claim that those 35 out of 40 witnesses are wrong. In fact we claim they are right, and the other 5 are wrong.

On 7/28/2024 at 12:13 PM, Pat Speer said:

I noticed a trend a few years back where people attracted to Trump were comparing him to JFK. I have also seen comparisons of him to Reagan. I can't see this. So I thought it would be useful to list what I see as the differences in the men, and am hoping others can do the same without the usual vitriol. I am merely trying to understand the divide.

 

JFK... Personally liked by both parties. Proposed policies that were helpful to people of color, to members of organized labor, and people from poor economic backgrounds. Wanted to expand personal rights. Tried to limit collateral damage from our foreign policy. 

Nixon... Not liked much even by his own party. Proposed policies that were helpful to a majority of Americans, and protective of the environment. Deliberately increased the amount of collateral damage from our foreign policy. Was desperate to increase presidential power. 

Reagan... Personally liked by both parties. Proposed policies that were helpful to the wealthy (while naively believing this wealth would trickle down), was antagonistic towards organized labor, and seemingly indifferent to personal rights. Deliberately increased the amount of collateral damage from our foreign policy (through the funding of the contras, etc). 

Trump... Personally disliked and feared by both his opposition party and many formerly of his own party. Proposed policies that were helpful to the wealthy and the ultra-religious. Wanted to reduce personal rights. Frequently threatened to greatly increase the collateral damage from our foreign policy. Was desperate to increase presidential power. 

 

As opposed to telling me I am wrong about any of this, I would appreciate people making their own lists. 

I think that what Pat said is a fair assessment.

I believe that Trump will be a very real danger to American democracy if elected.

On 7/28/2024 at 2:52 PM, W. Niederhut said:

On 7/28/2024 at 2:34 PM, Pat Speer said:

The vast majority of suspicious deaths, as I recall, are of people whose deaths were ruled to have been an accident, who ACTUALLY said very little to suggest a conspiracy.

On 7/28/2024 at 2:52 PM, W. Niederhut said:

C'mon, Pat.

I take it that you haven't read, or understood, the forensic details in the book?

W,

It should come as no surprise that Pat dismisses the accounts of these JFKA-coverup related deaths. Eyewitness testimonies and statistical analysis mean nothing to anti-alterationists like Pat when it comes to defending their precious preconceived notions.

Recall that anti-alterationists believe that nearly every witness to the gaping head wound (~40 of them) merely mass-hallucinated a large wound being on the back of the head, which they claim was really on the top of the head.

Statistical analysis proves that the odds of that happening naturally (i.e. without magic) is virtually zero. But that fact means nothing when put up against their preconceived notions.

4 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

McMahon admitted psychological/substance abuse difficulties. Douglas Horne and the ARRB seemed to have ignored this.

If you read only McMahon's paragraph regarding his psychological problems and substance abuse, it indeed gives the impression that his testimony cannot be trusted.

But it's a whole different ballgame if you read his full testimony, complete with the self-disparaging comment for context. Reading it that way gives the impression that he knows exactly what he is talking about and admits when his memory isn't strong on something. And the self-disparaging remark sounds like it is said in jest, with a wink.

I agree with Tom Gram, that it is an exaggeration on McMahon's part.

15 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

 

Wow... a young, clean shaven, pigtail-less Willy Nelson!

18 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Those who were shot in the head, were they on their knees?  If so, of course they're going to fall forward, regardless of where they were shot from.

I don't know why you say that Bill. If a person is upright but on their knees, they could fall any direction (if not pushed). For example, if they are unconscious.

6 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

The doctor's formula consisted of vitamins, enzymes, animal placentas, and hormones, ...

Oh c'mon, that can't possibly have any significant effect.

6 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

...with a dollop of methamphetamine.

Whoop! There ya' go!

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

M1V1 + M2V2 = M1V1' + M2V2' (+M3V3)

(Where M3 and V3 are the mass and velocity of the displaced skull and brain matter)

Yep, conservation of momentum is conserved, even though energy is lost in the form of heat.

Now, if you can somehow get a lot of mass to exit -- fast --in the direction of the bullet (M3V3), it's theoretically possible to get the now-lighter skull to reverse direction and move back toward the gun (M2V2).

Which is what Professor Alvarez recognized in the equation and what he set out to demonstrate in a real experiment.

He eventually got a melon bound up in tape to do just that, and LNers have been praising him since.

But, alas, it was but a parlor trick.The professor could never get the correct amounts of masses moving at the correct velocities to show that that was indeed what happened.

41 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

It was surprising to me that the list was so dominated by -sen names.

You know, you might be the only person in all of Denmark named Mark Ulrik!  (The website says "less than 3.")

Ulrik is very rare, with only 117 in Denmark.

9 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Larsen and Lars are extremely common!

From Statistics Denmark (January 1st 2024)

Last names

1     Nielsen     229.327
2     Jensen     226.181
3     Hansen     191.794
4     Andersen     147.066
5     Pedersen     145.213
6     Christensen     109.380
7     Larsen     104.971
8     Sørensen     100.188
9     Rasmussen     86.230
10     Jørgensen     80.135
11     Petersen     70.715
12     Madsen     59.503
13     Kristensen     56.801
14     Olsen     43.612
15     Thomsen     37.881
16     Christiansen     34.509
17     Poulsen     29.968
18     Johansen     29.395
19     Møller     29.207
20     Mortensen     27.624

Boy's names

1	Peter	46,552
2	Michael	44,338
3	Lars	43,290
4	Jens	42,123
5	Thomas	41,914
6	Henrik	40,996
7	Søren	38,745
8	Christian	37,480
9	Martin	36,944
10	Jan	36,134
11	Morten	33,601
12	Jesper	33,394
13	Anders	33,292
14	Mads	32,153
15	Niels	32,035
16	Rasmus	30,269
17	Mikkel	29,190
18	Per	28,700
19	Kim	28,189
20	Hans	27,709

Lars Larsen combo : 907

How many people are called ...?

Thanks Mark!

I live in Utah, where the Mormons settled. Among the Mormons were a lot of Danish and other Scandinavia converts. I've known people here with all but three of the surnames listed (Kristensen, Thomsen, Møller. and Mortensen).

BTW, my great, great, great grandfather's name was Lars Larsen.

7 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Much appreciated, JP, and ditto 😇

Mark,

I'm just curious.

I am told that I get my surname from a Danish immigrant. Is Larsen a common surname there?

What about Lars? is that still used as a given name?

If somebody addressed me as "Mister Larsen," I would think they were in a jovial mood.

If I jovially addressed somebody in the same way and the person took offense, I would apologize and try not to make that mistake again.

Human interaction can be messy. Especially when it's in words only with no tone of voice.