Sandy Larsen

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Tom Robinson: I think I saw a small wound that was not a bullet hole by the temple.

Tom Robinson, nineteen years later: I think I saw two or three tiny wounds by the right cheek.

Doug Horne, fourteen years after that: Robinson said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye. 

 

Apparently some think this makes perfect sense.

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

What is a Kent?

21 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So, you can follow the bouncing ball, right? In Fetzer/Mantik/Horne Bizarro world, Robinson's description of two or three small wounds on the cheek is consistent with Joe O'Donnell's claim there was a bullet hole high on the forehead.

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

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Heck, [Horne] claims Tom Robinson, his star witness, was involved in the clandestine delivery of JFK's body at Parkland an hour and a half before its official arrival.

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.

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

What did Tom Robinson tell the HSCA? That he recalled a small wound on Kennedy's temple.

What did Tom Robinson tell the ARRB? That there were two or three tiny wounds on Kennedy's cheek. 

What did Doug Horne take from his statements? That there was a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye.

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.

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, how did Johnson eventually find out about the plots?

It was the Drew Pearson story through Johnny Roselli.

When that got into the papers, LBJ told Helms he wanted a report on this.

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.

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is how we got the CIA IG Report.

After reading it, Johnson told his assistant he now thought the CIA was involved in JFK's murder.

That's interesting. I'd like to see that report.

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Although [LBJ] never said that in public.  The closest he got I think was when he said Oswald was likely not working alone. He had some help.

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."

7 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

Twymann details and confirms Lyndon Johnson PERSONALLY calling Will Fritz late on Saturday 11/23/63 and telling him to QUIT interrogating Oswald.

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.

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

But I have always wondered if Johnson really believed what Hoover was telling him.  Because after proffering this evidence, Hoover tells him that the picture is not Oswald and the voice on the tape is not either.  I have never known what to make of this.  Maybe LBJ realized he was being tricked and decided to call it off?

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.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

7 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Incision was made to remove the entrance.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I know that's what Horne wants us to believe...but how do you remove a hole by cutting into it?

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.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

As detailed in Jim D's last book Stone asked Horne this very question, and was given some rigamarole. The bone Horne claims was cut off the head contained no bullet hole, and was inches away from were they claim the bullet entered. So why was no hole in this location observed by those viewing the body at Parkland? Or Bethesda? Or shown on the photos? Or on the A-P x-ray? 

There was no bullet hole there. This whole hole thing got drummed up when Mantik took Robinson's recollection of a small wound on the cheek and started claiming he saw a bullet hole on the forehead. Robinson was asked about this by the ARRB and said it was two or three small wounds on the cheek.And yet here we are 25 years later with Mantik and Horne still claiming Robinson said he saw a hole on the forehead. 

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Scott, for example, has come up with the whole Phase 1 and Phase 2 idea.  That Mexico CIty was done to jump start a war on Castro, but then when LBJ and Hoover put the brakes to that, the idea was to make Oswald into a sociopathic loner model. 

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.)

14 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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

14 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

Lyndon Johnson was EXTREMELY UNHAPPY at being JFK's vice-presidential pick even though LBJ and Sam Rayburn had sexually blackmailed and strongarmed the compromised, unhinged sexual degenerate JFK (and weakling I should add) into putting LBJ onto the 1960 Democratic ticket.

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.

On 4/21/2024 at 1:25 PM, Christian Toussay said:

... To those following this and who cannot access the pictures: try "right click - open in new tab".

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.)

21 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

I think Lyndon Johnson was planning to murder JFK as soon as he got on the Democratic ticket and as soon as he was actually elected Vice President in November of 1960.

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

54 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Of those 65%, I'd bet that 99.8% of them don't know anything about the case.  They've never heard names like Ruth Paine, J.D. Tippit, Howard Brennan and Buell Frazier.  They only know terms like "grassy knoll" and "magic bullet".

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.

34 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

On 4/21/2024 at 9:18 PM, Bill Brown said:

"Oswald didn't act alone" is NOT a theory.

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

3 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

..what are your ideas on the removal of the FBI flash (or how it worked while it was "up" - or should I say how it didn't work....).  ...  Perhaps I should start a different topic on it, focussing on the FBI-CIA interactions.      

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

5 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Reporting an aversion to procrustean outputs from a faux blackbox constrained by speculative inputs.

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

4 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Okay -- we will resume substantive discussion and analysis, then.  Today gives me hope: Two comments at least that actually addressed the concept of mole-hunting generally, and whatever mole-hunt may have gone on here specifically.  We were starting to cook with gas at last.  Let's have more, I say.  

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.

21 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Noted!  Twice!!  Albeit that's not an accurate description of what has occurred, here on this thread, or on others. 

If you want to get into it, cite examples -- specific quotes -- and we can compare and contrast and analyze.  It is of course up to you.  

I already cited examples, after which you doubled down.

That's what led me to conclude that you cannot be reasoned with.

14 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Oswald being involved in a conspiracy (a completely incomplete theory, by the way) is one of the more popular conspiracy theories but it pales in comparison to the Oswald acted alone theory, probably something like 15% for Oswald being involved (just my guess) versus the aforementioned 35% for Oswald alone.

 

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.

6 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Biden

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/19/opinion/biden-gaza-war.html?unlocked_article_code=1.mE0.Tr0g.AgvhEMshGaan&smid=url-share

Netanyahu

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

12 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Believing a theory (Oswald acted alone) to be false is in itself a theory?

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).

3 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

So according to Bill Brown, 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. 

Clever response!

And true.

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

You see, Sandy, I can be reasonable.

Matt,

I don't have a problem with the fact that your opinion varies from mine.

What I do have a problem with is a double-standard you display in your disagreements with me. Specifically this: If I speculate something in order to form a hypothesis, you call me out on it as if there is something wrong with speculating. But when you do the very same thing -- speculate in order to form a hypothesis -- you act as if everything is okay.

Speculation is a necessary part of hypothesizing. So it is unreasonable for you to expect me not to speculate, especially in light of the fact that you do the very same thing yourself. And it is unreasonable for you double down on your accusation against me rather than accepting the obvious fact that you're employing a double-standard.

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

You see, Sandy, I can be reasonable.

Matt,

I don't have a problem with the fact that your opinion varies from mine.

What I do have a problem with is a double-standard you display in your disagreements with me. Specifically this: If I speculate something in order to form a hypothesis, you call me out on it as if there is something wrong with speculating. But when you do the very same thing -- speculate in order to form a hypothesis -- you act as if everything is okay.

Speculation is a necessary part of hypothesizing. So it is unreasonable for you to expect me not to speculate, especially in light of the fact that you do the very same thing yourself. And it is unreasonable for you double down on your accusation against me rather than accepting the obvious fact that you're employing a double-standard.