Sandy Larsen

24 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

About the plausibility of pulling the coverup off, that's a good point!,

I suppose that's a talking point  the top down LBJ- did -it can embrace.

But let's face it, either way, if the coverup was planned before the assassination or just winging it after the assassination, it was a Herculean task. How were they going to have any certainty of success of convincing the public there wasn't a conspiracy? But there is a plausible deniability by virtue of the fact that the Katzenbach memo is probably the tack a lot of governments would have taken if  there was at first a genuine suspicion of foreign involvement and it became uncertain that they may never get to the bottom of it in a desired timely fashion, and  so that a partial government coverup in itself doesn't point directly at LBJ.

Just for the record, I believe that only a small part of the coverup was planned before the assassination. Basically just the "Best Evidence" was altered.

The body is the best evidence. The coverup of the wounds-from-the-front was clearly planned before the assassination.

I also believe that movie pictures were targeted for cover-up, because the Zapruder film was also altered very quickly.

Had the government decided post-assassination to alter the Zapruder and other films, they would have had all the time in the world to work on them. Just tell the public that they were studying the films looking for clues.

But, no, that is not what happened. Instead the Z film was altered in a matter of a day or so. The plotters planned to do what they could with confiscated films, and they had to do it quickly so that the government wouldn't suspect anything.

@James DiEugenio @Gene Kelly

If the purpose of Mexico City was only to prevent a thorough government investigation and not to create a pretext for war, then

1. What was in it for the Generals? Why did they do their part in the autopsy? (Which was creating viability for Phase 2 by removing evidence of shots from the front.)
    
2. Why was Phase 1 still being pushed when it was clear there would be no thorough government investigation?
   
   (For example, David Phillips trying to recruit a Cuban intelligence officer two months after the assassination to corroborate Gilberto Alvarado's story. And June Cobb still pushing the Elena Garro story in late 1964.)

The fact that the Generals participated in the autopsy tells me that they were indeed involved in the assassination. And in fact were the likely instigators of it. We all know that the Generals were all for an invasion of Cuba. Many of them also wanted a first nuclear strike against the Soviet Union:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Did_the_US_Military_Plan_a_Nuclear_First_Strike_for_1963.html

So it seems likely that the military wanted to create a pretext for those two things.

16 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

17 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Pat is a sloppy, careless researcher who arbitrarily ignores basic facts that contradict his agenda, and then he turns around and shows naked contempt for others who dare contradict him.

If I have ever seen naked contempt, your own reaction has to be close 😀

Denny's contempt is justified.

I don't know how many times I've seen @Keven Hofeling present evidence directly proving Pat wrong about something, only to see Pat double down on his just-proved-wrong position.

On 5/3/2024 at 10:29 PM, Vince Palamara said:

Likewise, @Pat Speer is my favorite researcher- he has me questioning my beliefs on the medical evidence over and over again.

In my opinion, Pat Speer is a center of anti-CT disinformation and a friend of LNers.

His membership on the forum is a disservice to all of the anti-WC researchers here. That's my opinion.

On 5/3/2024 at 12:56 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

? How do we need [Israel]?

Israel is our only strong ally in the Middle East. They provide a lot of valuable intelligence to the U.S.

The U.S. won't say so publicly, but I think it's pretty obvious that, in addition, the U.S. secretly supports Israel's Begin Policy of preventing countries of the Middle Ease from becoming nuclear powers. Like with its bombing of Iraq's new nuclear reactor in 1981 (Operation Opera) and of Syria's nuclear reactor in 2007 (Operation Outside the Box). The U.S. has pursued diplomatic means of stopping Iran's nuclear program, but I think it secretly welcomes measures currently being taken by Israel as well.

In the recent Israeli attack on Iran, I've wonder if some of its nuclear sites were destroyed. But then kept secret by Iran out of embarrassment, and kept secret by America and Israel for fear of stoking a wider conflict.

On 5/3/2024 at 12:56 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

Biden has to come up with a consensus plan of Arab states to give financial support to a 2 state solution and start to leverage that against Bibi and hope with  world public opinion to drive a wedge in Israel public opinion among those who want peace who realize nothing would change in their lives as they never go to the Palestinian enclaves anyway.

Sure, the two-state solution has always been the long-term goal of Biden's strategy. Netanyahu's Gazan genocide is bringing the world together in support of the two-state solution. It is sad that so many have had to suffer to affect this change, but the change is better than having gotten nothing from the suffering. (BTW, I'm not suggesting that the suffering was part of Biden's plan. But I'm sure it was expected from Netanyahu.)

On 5/3/2024 at 12:56 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

And with that new [Iron Dome] immunity, what did Israel do? Bomb an Embassy in Syria to try to lure Iran into a regional war! And of course our entire media just reports it as if it was justified!

Iran's direct attack on Israel was unprecedented. The way Iran went about it was like they didn't want it to succeed. It made me wonder if Iran intentionally provoked Israel knowing that Israel would attack its nuclear sites. That in order to determine which of its nuclear sites remain unknown to the American/Israeli intelligence communities.

1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well that's odd. I got the name Rybka from a paper written by none other than Vince Palamara. One would think he'd get it right, of all people.

1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:

Rybka was assigned to stay at Love Field.

But so was the other candidate... Lawton.

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

As for stopping the carnage, i don't think Netanyahu and his Kahanists would have crossed Biden and the international community if they had insisted on halting the bombings of Gaza civilians.  

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

 [Israel] wouldn't have wanted to risk alienating the United States.  They need us.

Israel isn't afraid of losing the United States. Had Biden stopped military aid, Netanyahu would have continued on with his war knowing that another election would bring another president. And a subsequent resumption of military aid.

Israel needs us... but they know that we need them too. Plus Israel knows that the Republican half the country aren't much concerned with the fate of the Palestinian people.

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Some people are ruled by their hearts and others are ruled by their heads.

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

You're misdiagnosing accurate, evidence-based criticism of the Gaza genocide as emotional reasoning.

William,

You misunderstood my metaphors. (And, BTW, I've never denied the "accurate, evidence-based criticism of the Gaza genocide.")

I'll explain my metaphors with an analogy:

Being ruled by one's heart - Bernie Sanders.

A fire suddenly breaks out on a large skillet. Bernie Sanders exclaims, "Oh my!" and quickly throws water on it. Doing so splashes hot grease over everything and the house burns down.

Being ruled by one's head - Joe Biden.

A fire suddenly breaks out on a large skillet. Joe Biden exclaims, "Oh my!", pauses, and thinks for a moment. The emotionally-driven first thought would be to throw water on the fire. But he reasons that doing so will only splash and spread the fire. He thinks a moment longer and goes to the linen closet.

While Biden is doing that, W. Niederhut screams, "Hey man! You're just gonna let the fire burn down the house? Ahhhh! You'll go down in history as an arsonist!"

In the meantime Biden returns with a towel, moistens it with water, and drapes it over the skillet. The lack of oxygen extinguishes the fire.

Biden saves the day!

6 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

How could the plotters be absolutely sure they could remove all or enough evidence of a shot from the front?

I'm sure the plotters were concerned about that.

But if we were to deny that part of the plot was to control the autopsy for the sake of removing evidence of shots from the front, then we'd be forced to believe that the government came up with that decision extremely quickly after the assassination. Including surreptitiously removing the body from the brass casket and placing it in a shipping casket, flying it by helicopter to Bethesda, and performing pre-autopsy surgery on it. That just isn't possible. It had to have been planned prior to the assassination.

29 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Sandy,

    Your apparent concept is to simply let the right-wing Likud Party Israeli tail wag the American dog-- as if the U.S. and UN had no authority or ability to intervene to prevent a horrific genocide.  I don't buy it.

LOL what?! You think that the United States has control over other nation's militaries?? That is so naive!

I mean, sure, the United States and other countries have the moral right to intervene in Israel's war in Gaza. But the only way for them to accomplish that is to declare war on Israel!

Is that what you want?

29 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

     We all know that AIPAC is immensely powerful in U.S. domestic politics, but where was JFK this year when the world really needed an American POTUS to set limits on Netanyahu massacring Palestinian women and children?

There are only two ways the U.S. could set limits on Netanyahu entering Rafah, 1) by threatening to discontinue military aid to Israel, and 2) by threatening to go to war with Israel.

Had you gotten your way, by now Biden would have already cut off military aid. To protect the millions of refuges in Rafah, all Biden could do at this point would be to threaten to attack Israel!

29 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

     Incidentally, are you aware that knowledgeable, experienced foreign policy experts have resigned from the Biden administration in protest over his mismanagement of the Gaza Genocide?

Yes, some have resigned. Others haven't.

Some people are ruled by their hearts and others are ruled by their heads.

The best leaders are those who feel with their hearts but rule with their heads. That is what we have with President Biden.

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy:

I must say that John Newman also agrees with Scott on his Phase One and Phase two model.

I don't care to call it a theory, since I agree with you, that it is pretty close to what happened.  So I don't think it can be called something theoretical.

I think the ground level perps wanted an attack on Cuba, I mean look at the DRE for one.

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

But a friend of mine brought this up to me: Jim was there really a tandem plan or was it planned all along to revert to Phase two?

I have to say that is pretty insightful.

Yeah, I've read of that possibility more than once. I think one proponent of that theory referred to Phase 1 as a "poison pill"

I think that that is a possible explanation for what happened. But I'm skeptical because the Phase 1 plan continued on long past the need for it... if all it was was a poison pill to get LBJ to accept the lone gunman scenario.

I've wanted to debate whether or not the "poison pill" idea is the right one. But I haven't opened a thread for it because it appears not enough members even understand the Phase 1 / Phase 2 theory/fact.

22 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

On 5/2/2024 at 2:37 PM, James DiEugenio said:

I don't think it was Rybka.  I think it was Lawton.

You are correct. It was Lawton.

Well that's odd. I got the name Rybka from a paper written by none other than Vince Palamara. One would think he'd get it right, of all people.

44 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

And Biden furnished the bombs, while vetoing UN cease-fire resolutions.

Had Biden voted for the UN resolutions, Netanyahu would have said screw you and would have attacked all of Gaza without any warnings for the civilians to move south.

Had Biden altered long-standing U.S. policy in providing military aid to Israel, he would now have zero leverage in keeping Israel from invading Rafah while a million Gazans taking refuge there are starving to death.

Yeah, that's real smart William.

Doing it you way would have sure felt good... like you were actually accomplishing something. But in reality it would have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Gazans.

Biden keeps up pressure on Netanyahu as possible Rafah invasion looms

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/28/biden-netanyahu-rafah-invasion-00154847

Biden last month warned that an invasion in Rafah would be a “red line” for his administration, pushing Israel not to pursue a military campaign in the region without a credible plan to protect civilians in place.

...On the call with Netanyahu, Biden also “reviewed ongoing talks to secure the release of hostages together with an immediate ceasefire in Gaza” and “discussed increases in the delivery of humanitarian assistance into Gaza including through preparations to open new northern crossings starting this week,” according to the White House.

During the interview on ABC, Kirby noted, “There are still challenges on the ground in getting [aid] up into the north but that’s starting to happen, and the Israelis have started to meet the commitments that President Biden asked them to meet.”

22 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

 Biden's collusion in Netanyahu's Gaza Genocide will be remembered as an historic abomination.

You are wrong.

There has been no Biden collusion. Only people whose emotions overcome their ability to think rationally.

21 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

But, at the very least, Biden should have halted the shipment of American bombs to Israel.

And what would have happened if Biden had supported UN ceasefire resolutions?

Netanyahu was actually doing some of the things Biden asked him to do to minimize civilian casualties.

I don't know every one of Biden's calculations, but I suspect he feared that Netanyahu would quit listening to him if he had voted for a UN resolution or halted arms shipments.

The one thing Biden did do was stipulate what arms couldn't be used in Gaza. And of course, now he has signaled that he will change policy toward Israel if Netanyahu invades Rafah without providing refuge for the Gazans living there. Or if Netanyahu doesn't allow humanitarian aid in.

I believe that Biden was saving his big guns (threatening to end military and other aid) for when the largest number civilian lives were at stake. That time has arrived.

Progressives should be happy with that. But now my conservative friends are bitching that Biden is turning his back on Israel.

59 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Sandy,

     Obama and Clinton are trying to help Biden get re-elected, fortunately.

     They are, certainly, not going to bash him for his disastrous blunders in Gaza.

     But the truth is that Biden's response to Netanyahu's Gaza genocide will go down as an historic foreign policy debacle-- an abomination.  He shipped bombs to Bibi, and vetoed UN ceasefire resolutions.

     Think about it. 

     First, Biden unabashedly shipped bombs and military hardware to Netanyahu to completely demolish Gaza-- apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and mosques, etc.-- and massacre 35,000 non-combatant civilians, including 15,000 children.

     Then he later tries to organize relief efforts for the displaced, starving population of Gaza. 

      We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Netanyahu would have bombed the hell out of Gaza regardless of what Biden did.

But had it not been for Biden, the number of civilian deaths would have been much greater. And right now Israel would be bombing Rafah while the millions of Gazans sheltering there die of starvation and sickness.

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I think Biden has played it masterfully. It hasn't worked out as well as we all hoped only because of Netanyahu's stubbornness, not Biden's mishandling.

My take is this...

1. Biden has a strategic plan that he's been working to minimize civilian casualties.

2. Biden's critics have no idea that Biden has a strategy. What they want to see is anti-Netanyahu rhetoric coming from Biden's mouth and anti-Netanyahu actions taken at the UN. Regardless of the outcome. (Sure, they want a good outcome... but their focus is on having Biden come across as being anti-Netanyahu... period.)

On 4/30/2024 at 7:00 PM, W. Niederhut said:

[Biden] should have withheld bombs and military equipment, and supported UN ceasefire resolutions.

Biden got Netanyahu's ear by commiserating with him over the Oct. 7 attack. Because of that, he was able to get Netanyahu to notify Gazans of imminent attacks so they could move out of harm's way.

From the article I quoted in my prior post:

Biden’s strategy at the beginning of the conflict had been to embrace Netanyahu publicly, while privately urging him to scale down the military operation in Gaza, but Israel has often defied US recommendations.

In contrast, you would have threatened Netanyahu to hopefully achieve the same goal.

Has it not occurred to you that your plan could backfire by angering Netanyahu into ignoring you and doing as he pleased with the Gazans?

From the article I quoted in my prior post:

...some of the former Obama administration had been warning that the Israeli prime minister had a history of ignoring US advice.

I don't see how your approach could have done any better than Biden's approach. At least Biden's approach has had some demonstrable success.

I think Biden has played it masterfully. It hasn't worked out as well as we all hoped only because of Netanyahu's stubbornness, not Biden's mishandling.

On 4/30/2024 at 7:00 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Obama would have handled the situation much better, IMO, because he understood Netanyahu's militant bigotry.

Obama and Clinton defend Biden’s support for Israel’s war in Gaza

Former presidents spoke at Democrat fundraiser in New York that was disrupted by protesters.
Financial Times   March 28, 2024

Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, the former US presidents, sought to bolster Democratic support for Joe Biden on his handling of Israel’s war in Gaza — an area of angst and division within the party — ahead of the coming presidential election against Donald Trump.

At a star-studded fundraiser held at New York City’s Radio City Music Hall on Thursday, Obama and Clinton backed Biden’s leadership on the Middle East conflict, as protesters interrupted the event to criticise US support for Israel.

The turmoil in the Middle East was “one of the most important reasons to elect President Biden”, said Clinton, who repeatedly sought to broker peace in the region during his time in office between 1993 and 2001.

“He genuinely cares about preserving the existence of Israel, which Hamas doesn’t. And he genuinely cares about giving the Palestinians a decent state of self governance and the support they need for self determination,” Clinton added.

Obama said Biden had shown “moral conviction and clarity”, adding that “he’s also willing to acknowledge that the world is complicated and that he’s willing to listen to all sides in this debate”.

The support from Clinton and Obama comes with Biden facing a wave of criticism from the left of the Democratic party — including Arab-American communities in key swing states, particularly Michigan — that has threatened to harm his re-election chances in November.

Biden has been increasingly critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct of the war recently, saying he was not doing enough to prevent civilian casualties in Gaza and ensure access to humanitarian aid in the enclave.

Israel launched its war against Hamas after the group killed 1,200 Israelis in an October 7 raid on the country last year. Israel’s retaliatory offensive has so far killed more than 32,000 people in Gaza, according to Palestinian authorities, as well as displaced 1.7mn of its 2.3mn inhabitants and fuelled a humanitarian catastrophe in the enclave. US officials have warned that Israel risked losing international support if it continued with its offensive without adequate plans to protect civilians. But Biden has still not endorsed a permanent ceasefire or the conditioning of US military aid to Israel, as some Democrats have been calling for.

“There are too many innocent victims, Israeli and Palestinian. We’ve got to get more food and medicine, supplies into the Palestinians. But we can’t forget, Israel is in a position where its very existence as at stake,” Biden said during the fundraiser.

Obama’s support for Biden’s stance on Israel is particularly significant because he had a more tense relationship with Netanyahu while in office between 2009 and 2017, and some of the former Obama administration had been warning that the Israeli prime minister had a history of ignoring US advice.

Biden’s strategy at the beginning of the conflict had been to embrace Netanyahu publicly, while privately urging him to scale down the military operation in Gaza, but Israel has often defied US recommendations.

Biden has also been calling for Israel to accept a “two-state solution” at the end of the conflict, which Netanyahu has rejected, though the US president said it was still possible.

“I‘ve been working with the Saudis and with all the other Arab countries, including Egypt and Jordan and Qatar. They’re prepared to fully recognise Israel,” Biden said on Thursday.

“But there has to be a post-Gaza plan, and there has to be a train to a two-state solution. It doesn’t have to occur today, but there has to be a progression, and I think we can do that.”

[End]

On 4/30/2024 at 7:00 PM, W. Niederhut said:

        Biden should have been much more forceful in opposing the massacre of women and children in Gaza, and the massive bombing of schools, hospitals, and residential buildings.

From the above article:

Obama’s support for Biden’s stance on Israel is particularly significant because he had a more tense relationship with Netanyahu while in office between 2009 and 2017, and some of the former Obama administration had been warning that the Israeli prime minister had a history of ignoring US advice.

On 4/30/2024 at 10:32 PM, James DiEugenio said:

You know, I think Jacob posted this due to this debate going on when I posted my review of Under Cover of Night.

Let us take them one by one.  The idea that somehow LBJ forced the cadaver out of the hospital so there would not be an autopsy struck me as odd.  Since i had never seen that particular charge before.  So I went back to what should be the two best sources on this, namely Manchester and Bishop. Those two men wrote books based on many sources and interviews nearest to the time of the crime.  They were hour by hour, sometimes minute by minute chronicles.  

The man who wanted to get LBJ out of Dallas was Rufus Youngblood, and secondarily Roberts. (Manchester, pp 232-34; Bishop p. 245) Nobody knew at that time how extensive the plot was. Recall, the Lincoln assassination had at least three targets.  Youngblood also was the one who urged LBJ to get out of the hospital once Kennedy was dead. And, in fact, since JFK was dead, the Secret Service should have gone with Johnson. (ibid, p. 289) Because as Manchester notes, once JFK was dead, Jackie was not technically the First Lady and was not entitled to Secret Service, bodyguards or aides.

And actually, O'Donnell and Powers and O'Brien had no standing either.  

When Kilduff told LBJ that Kennedy was now dead, this is why Johnson told him that the Secret Service wanted him to leave.  In fact, they had sent agents out to guard his daughters, that is how palpable the sense of a wide ranging plot was. (Bishop, p. 250) Another indication is this: LBJ also told Kilduff to wait until he was gone before he addressed the press. (Bishop, p. 248). Johnson told Kilduff he would wait for Jackie. (Bishop p. 250)

It was Jackie Kennedy who said to O'Donnell, Powers and the Secret Service, "I'm not going to leave her without Jack."  She actually said this three times at different intervals. O'Donnell ordered a casket after the first time she said it.. (Manchester, p. 289) Clint Hill then picked out a casket at O"Neals. (ibid, p. 292) When they brought it back, Jackie looked at it.  O'Donnell then said, "We must get her out of here." (Bishop, p. 268) The body was loaded into the casket with Jackie watching.   Meanwhile the Pentagon calls Dallas and asks "Who is in charge?" Obviously worried about a big attack and what a response would be. (Bishop p. 272). LBJ calls the AG about taking the oath. (ibid.)

Kellerman is waiting for the death certificate from Clark so he can get the casket out to Air Force One ASAP. (Bishop p. 284) When he gets it the big confrontation with Earl Rose takes place. Manchester has a really good description of this.  No one in the Kennedy camp would listen to Rose, and this included Burkley.  O'Donnell was almost as vociferous in this as Kellerman. (Bishop p. 286, Manchester, p. 304). O'Donnell said, "I was in a panic to get out of there, that little lady just couldn't stand there with her husband's body that long." (Manchester, p. 306).   In fact, it was O'Donnell who gave the order to Kellerman to run over Rose. (Bishop, p. 286). Which they did.

Once they were out, Kellerman called AIr Force 1 and said they were on the way, as did O'Donnell. (Bishop p. 299) Kellerman described their vehicles and said once they were inside, to lock the gates. O'Donnell said to take off once they were on board. But Sarah Hughes was not there yet so they waited for her and Jackie for LBJ to take the oath. (Bishop, pp. 299-300). O'Donnell dreaded waiting since he thought Rose would follow them with a police detachment. (Bishop p. 306). AF One left at 2:47 PM

In about 75 pages of detail, I could find no order that Johnson demanded that Kennedy's corpse be taken out of the hospital over any objections by Jackie or Rose.  What happened is that Youngblood and Roberts wanted LBJ out of Dallas, as did the people in Washington. There really was a fear of a continuing plot. Once Youngblood made that decision then it was just a matter of waiting for Jackie.  And the decision to take the body out was clearly by JFK's assistants and the top level of the Secret Service.  

If someone can show me where this is wrong or something is missing, go ahead.  But please, unlike Hornberger, and Fetter, footnote your reply properly.

Thanks for posting that Jim.

The following sets up my comment:

1. An element of the CIA plotted the assassination, and also plotted the false flag operation designed to blame Cuba and Russia for it. The available evidence proves that.

2. The available evidence also proves that the Generals had been tasked with controlling the autopsy in a way that would cover up shots from he front. It occurred so quickly that it had to have been part of the CIA plot.

Note that numbers 1 and 2 contradict one another in that #1 indicates a conspiracy while #2 indicates a lone gunman. Why would the CIA plotters have designed the plot this way? Because had LBJ chosen NOT to take advantage of the prelude to war created by #1 (or not been convinced by it), the (faked) autopsy evidence would have allowed the authorities to proceed with the lone gunman solution to the assassination. Thereby eliminating the need for the US government to investigate further beyond the designated patsy. Which, of course, benefited the plotters.

For the plot to work, it was absolutely necessary that Kennedy's body be taken to Bethesda for the autopsy.

The above is roughly Peter Dale Scott's Phase-1/Phase-2 theory. The evidence for it is so strong, and it makes so much sense, that I consider the theory to be fact.

That said, it makes absolutely no sense for the plotters to have designed the plan to work the way it did if LBJ were an integral part of the plan. Because if LBJ were indeed an integral part, the plotters could have simply asked him if he wanted them to make it look like the Cubans or Russians were behind the assassination. They then could have planned the assassination accordingly. There would have been no need for a Phase-1/Phase-2 plan.

Therefore, your argument in this thread makes a lot of sense... that it was someone in the Secret Service who instigated the snatching of JFK's body from the Texas authorities.

One of the first SS agents you mentioned, Emory Roberts, makes a lot of sense for this role. He was the same agent who had instructed Agent Henry Rybka to fall back from the rear area of JFK's limousine, causing a perplexed Rybka to stop and raise his arms several times in protest.

12 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

 

 

Jagger with a country western twang! Who would'a thought?

This is the second time Denny Z. has brought out the young'uns!

8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

I am also profoundly disappointed with Joe Biden for his mismanagement of the Gaza genocide.

What would you have done differently, William?

21 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Pat and Kevin, 

Can you tell me where the R side head autopsy picture that you posted came from? Is it part of the “leaked” Fox set? Or is there an official source for it? (I.e., is there a NARA or government url for the image?) 

Denise,

You can download uncropped high-resolution scans of the autopsy photos here:

https://archive.org/details/jfk-autopsy-photos-hd_202204/Back of head (15%3A16) (HT).jpg

To your caddie:  "Hand me my four iron....  No, make that my 30-06 rifle."