Sandy Larsen

There is no federal regulation stating that banks must require an endorsement or bank stamp on checks they cash. It is up to each bank to decide whether or not they will accept an unendorsed check. Banks know that if they cash a check without it being endorsed, the originating bank is not required to honor it, and the bank that accepted it might well be stiffed. Banks often will accept non-endorsed checks from customers they've had for a while. That said... Federal law DOES require that postal money orders be bank stamped. (At least that was the case in the 1900s... I don't know about now.) And the PMO supposedly used to purchase the Carcano rifle did NOT have bank stamps. It likely had not been cashed. in other words, it likely had been forged.

Let me make this simple for you, David. Pat said: "Dr. McClelland saw a wound on the temple and not on the back of the head." Dr. McClelland said: "...the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted.... and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out." There is no difference of opinion. What Pat said is false. And it has been shown to be false to him many times. Yet he continues to post it. That is a forum violation and I have penalized Pat for it. Look, if Pat were to say that it is his opinion that McClellan saw a gaping wound on Kennedy's temple, I'd probably let it slide. But he keeps stating it as though it were a fact. And it just isn't. We can't have members going around saying things that aren't true, as though they are.

The difference is that Pat lied and I didn't.

Pat, Every single time I've spent the time fact checking something you've claimed, I've found you to be wrong. Just like I did with your first paragraph I quote above. I'm not going to waste my time on your second paragraph. But I'll bet anybody with $100 that either you've mischaracterized what Mantik said, or what Humes said, or that Mantik isn't claiming that he's right but rather is hypothesizing. You have lost all credibility.

Above, Pat Speer said: "Dr. McClelland saw a wound on the temple and not on the back of the head." Pat has been shown multiple times that his claim is false. I proved it one more time (above) by posting this: It is against forum rules to post something that is demonstrably false. Though the moderators have historically been tolerant of this behavior, as far as I can tell. However, upon seeing above that Pat had switched things around, calling me the liar, I decided I'd had enough. I have penalized Pat for posting something that is demonstrably false. And I will do so in the future if he continues to post falsehoods. In addition, it is against forum rules to say a member has lied when in fact he hasn't. I have penalized Pat for that as well.

Yes it's honest. Here is what Tom Robinson said for the HSCA: PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy? ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it. PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound. ROBINSON: Yes. PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on? ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side. PURDY: On his right side? ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes. PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline? ROBINSON: Yes. PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair? ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples. PURDY: Approximately what size? ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch. PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors? ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it.

No, that is one of your persistent lies. Here is what McClelland said: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33) Later he said, "...unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy's life) were of no avail." (Emphasis added throughout) (WC--V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, "...massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss." (WC--V6:34) This business about the temple wound 1) was regarding a SMALL entrance wound; 2) was not seen by McClelland himself; 3) was reported by Dr. Jenkins when McClelland asked him where the wound was; and 3) was disavowed by Jenkins when Posner brought it up.

OMG, that's the most bass-ackward thing I've ever heard! The whole reason for alterationism is to explain how it is that the evidence doesn't match up with what the witnesses say they saw. ALTERATIONISTS BELIEVE WHAT THE WITNESSES SAY AND THEREFORE BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENCE IS WRONG... i.e, HAS BEEN ALTERED! It is the non-alterationists who say that the evidence is correct, i.e. unaltered, and therefore the witnesses are wrong! Mantik -- like you -- has chosen to believe the official story regarding the three triangular fragments of skull bone being brought in from Dallas. I'm not sure how he figures those bones escaped through the gaping scalp wound at the back of the head. You are both clearly wrong in my opinion. But I don't have a problem with Mantik because he's honest person as far as I can tell. As I keep pointing out, it is dishonesty that I have little tolerance for.

This is a great example of the convoluted process Pat uses to discredit and change the testimonies of the doctors who are the true best witnesses to the gaping wound location. Specifically, here is what he did: So far, so good. Pat has shown how to choose the best witnesses of the gaping wound. That should be the end of Pat statement because the only thing Keven asked for was the identification of the best witnesses. Problem is, Pat knows that ALL the best witnesses said that the gaping wound was on the back of the head... the right side of the back. And this contradicts what Pat believes. So he knows he has to discredit or alter the testimonies of these men. Which he does next: Aha! Pat isn't interested in where the best witnesses place the gaping wound. He is interested in knowing which ones believe in two CT theories! What the hell has that got to do with choosing who the best witnesses are? Or accepting what they claim to have seen? The answer is, absolutely nothing! Pat just wants to discredit the EARLY STATEMENTS of as many of those witnesses as possible. Even though early statements are usually the most reliable ones. Let's see what else Pat does: Again, what the hell has this got to do with picking the best witnesses? The answer is, nothing! I can only guess what Pat is trying to do here. I think that he thinks that pro-back-of-head researchers, like Doug Horne and Mantik, single out witnesses who change there testimonies -- upon seeing there is no hole on the back of Kennedy's head in the autopsy photos -- and calls them cowards or liars. So I guess what he is trying to do to discredit those researchers who disagree with his position. In all my years of dealing with this issue, I have not seen a single researcher call those who have changed their testimony a coward or liar. I've only seen them labeled as succumbing to peer pressure. But even if there are researchers who do call those folks cowards or liars, what would that have to do with the choosing of the best witnesses? Having said that, I want to point out the intellectually honest way of dealing with this phenomenon of changing testimony due to external influence is simply to give greatest weight to EARLY TESTIMONY... before any external influence has had a chance of altering a person's testimony. In contrast, it is intellectually dishonest to use it as a means of supporting one's argument.

Gene, Thanks for your response. I don't know how anyone can think that the Generals didn't want to attack Cuba. The Bay of Pigs proved that they did. President Johnson was handed to him a pretext for a Cuban invasion. He apparently didn't want it. That's the reason Phase 1 was rejected and Phase 2 accepted instead. Maybe he handed Vietnam to the Generals as a compromise. Yes, that makes sense. Which supports what I said about the Generals wanting a first nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. When the military and CIA presented this plan to Kennedy (in 1962, I think), he asked what would be the best time to launch an attack. Dulles responded by saying the end of 1963.

Doug is so determined to make Biden the villain that he sticks his head in the sand. From the very article Doug posted: For weeks, Mr. Netanyahu has vowed that Israeli forces will invade Rafah, where many of Hamas’s remaining military forces are believed to be arrayed alongside some of its leaders. The plan has prompted widespread criticism, including from the Biden administration, fueled by concern for the safety of more than a million displaced Gazans sheltering there. And there is this: US increases pressure on Israel over Gaza aid as truce talks continue Top US diplomat says efforts to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza must be accelerated and sustained as famine looms in parts of the territory. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/1/us-increases-pressure-on-israel-over-gaza-aid-as-truce-talks-continue

Yes, of course I knew about that. In retaliation to that, Iran attacked Israel with hundreds of missiles and drones. Almost all of which were shot down by the Israelis and the U.S. Somehow you misunderstood my comment on that. Here again is what I said: 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.

My calling Pat out has absolutely nothing to do with differences of opinion or differing theories. It has everything to do with his practice of misrepresenting and cherry-picking facts in an attempt to bring them inline with his beliefs. He will not only misrepresent evidence and testimony, but will misrepresent the beliefs and theories of opposing researchers in order to discredit them. And when Pat is called out for doing this and is proven wrong, he doubles down on it rather than admit he made a mistake. I have considerable tolerance for other people's opinions. But I have a low tolerance for dishonest behavior.

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 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.) 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.) 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.

But so was the other candidate... Lawton.

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.

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!

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.

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? 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! 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.

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.

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.