Sandy Larsen

I said you were bootlicking because I recall the last time Keven proved Pat lied, your response was much the same as it is this time. That it wasn't a matter of lying, but rather a matter of interpretation. And so you came to Pat's rescue. Well, you are just as wrong this time as you were last time. This matter has nothing to do with interpretation and everything to do with whether a person accepts a fact or decides to fraudulently mischaracterize it to meet their objectives.

Gee Sean, That sounds a lot like what we have going on here, doesn't it? But then, the difference is that it was "basically a theory" in your story, whereas it is a proven lie in this story.

fraudulent (ˈfrɔːdjʊlənt) adj 1. acting with or having the intent to deceive 2. relating to or proceeding from fraud or dishonest action [C15: from Latin fraudulentus deceitful] Stating a proven fact is not "ad hominem."

Notwithstanding Jean Ceulemans' unsurprising pro-Speer bootlicking, Keven has unequivocally proven that Pat is wrong about James Jenkins' position regarding the large wound on the back of JFK's head, and the deceptive means Pat has used to change the meaning of what he said. Jenkins states right there in the 1991 video that there was a fist-sized wound on the back of the head prior to the mortician reconstructing the head, after which the hole was reduced to about the size of a silver dollar. What Pat did was cherry-picked some of what Jenkins said, and took it out of context so that it seemed like he was saying that the scalp was intact in the area. For the visuals, Pat cherry-picked frames that were most favorable to his narrative. This is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do with the large wound on Kennedy's head.

Keven, Thank you for spending the time and effort to research and present the case you are laying out here. It is important that falsehoods be called out for what they are. It is especially important for respected researchers to be called out because it can otherwise result in serious damage to our cause. I'd hate to be a newbie who followed a researcher for a while only to learn that I'd been believing lies. We all need to be made aware of people like these.

Oh, I get it now. Woodstein = Woodward + Bernstein I'd never heard that before. I've never been a student of Watergate.

I was surprised when Matt said Moynihan was Deep Throat. And especially when you said he might be. We all know that Mark Felt admitted to being Deep Throat decades ago. And not only that, but that Woodward and Bernstein both confirmed the identification. I don't know how you guys get around that.

Fine and dandy... Okay, so you believe that Oswald was set up to be a (or the) patsy for the assassination. How do you suppose the assassination plotters got Oswald into the building he needed to be in to take the blame for the assassination?

You mean, you don't believe Oswald was set up to be a patsy?

Of course she denied it. But from the FBI's perspective she may have been lying in order to protect herself from prosecution. I seem to have lost you. There was no $6500. There was no talk of assassination. There wasn't even an authentic Oswald. The whole incident was a fabrication carried out by the CIA in an attempt to make it appear that Cuba/Russia paid Oswald $6500 in order to kill Kennedy. This was done in order to give the U.S. military an excuse for invading Cuba or attacking Russia... and excuse that the American public would accept. But it was rejected by LBJ. He wanted no war with Cuba or Russia. My point wasn't whether or not the CIA's fake story was proven true. My point was that it seemed real enough to Hoover that he was even concerned about it! Keep in mind that it had already been decided a week earlier that there hadn't been a conspiracy and that they were going to blame only Oswald. So why were Elena Garro's and Gilberto Alvarado's allegations bothering Hoover? Because, if they were right, he was going to have to live with it! Can you imagine the WC convicting Oswald of the assassination, only to have the truth of a conspiracy with Cuba or Russia emerging a couple years down the road?

LOL, thanks Denny.

Given that the CIA found him disposable, he couldn't have been of much importance to them.

You're assuming that the plotters cared about the looks of the Oswald impersonator. Based all the evidence I'm aware of, Oswald didn't have a rifle and wasn't trying to shoot anybody. Maybe Ruby was more afraid of what might happen if didn't kill Oswald, than if he did kill Oswald. The CIA's plan gave LBJ two options, both of them favorable to the CIA. LBJ cold either accept the pretext for war on Cuba/Russia, or he could reject the pretext for war and blame only Oswald. Either way, there is no further investigation of the assassination! Which is exactly what the CIA wanted. Because that would invite further investigation of the assassination. Not something the perpetrators wanted. The CIA plotters had nearly no role in the coverup. That was a task taken on by the LBJ Administration to prevent WW3. The body is the Best Evidence. The CIA plotters were involved in making sure the autopsy was compatible with a lone gunman. Because, remember, their plan was to give LBJ the option of choosing conspiracy or lone gunman. I'm pretty sure its not that easy to assassinate a president. If it were, we wouldn't have a Putin leading Russia. Nobody -- including you -- knows where all the bullet entrances and exits are. Your theory, therefore, adds virtually nothing to the case. Your theory does nothing for the case other than making it unnecessarily more complex.

Reasons to Believe Oswald was a CIA Operative (Based on Jim Hargrove's list.) 1. CIA accountant James Wilcott testified that he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.” Contemporaneous HSCA notes indicate Wilcott told staffers, but wasn't allowed to say in Executive session, that the cryptonym for the CIA's "Oswald Project" was RX-ZIM. 2. Antonio Veciana said he saw LHO meeting with CIA’s Maurice Bishop/David Atlee Phillips in Dallas in August 1963. 3. A 1978 CIA memo indicates that a CIA operations officer “had run an agent into the USSR, that man having met a Russian girl and eventually marrying her,” a case very similar to Oswald’s and clearly indicating that the Agency ran a “false defector” program in the 1950s. 4. Robert Webster and LHO "defected" a few months apart in 1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both returned to the United States in the spring of 1962. 5. Richard Sprague, Richard Schweiker, and CIA agents Donald Norton and Joseph Newbrough all said LHO was associated with the CIA. 6. CIA employee Donald Deneslya said he read reports of a CIA "contact" who had worked at a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and child. 7. George Joannides, case officer and paymaster for DRE (which LHO had attempted to infiltrate) was put in charge of lying to the HSCA and never told them of his relationship to DRE. 8. For his achievements, Joannides was given a medal by the CIA. 9. FBI took Oswald off the watch list at the same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health, weeks after Oswald’s New Orleans arrest and less than two months before the assassination. 10. Oswald’s lengthy “Lives of Russian Workers” essay reads like a pretty good intelligence report. 11. Oswald’s possessions were searched for microdots. 12. Oswald owned an expensive Minox spy camera, which the FBI tried to make disappear. 13. Even the official cover story of the radar operator near American U-2 planes defecting to Russia, saying he would give away all his secrets, and returning home without penalty smells like a spy story. 14. LHO always seemed poor as a church mouse, until it was time to go “on assignment.” For his Russian adventure, we’re to believe he saved all the money he needed for first class European hotels and private tour guides in Moscow from the non-convertible USMC script he saved. 15. To this day, the CIA claims it never interacted with Oswald, that it didn’t even bother debriefing him after the “defection.” What utter bs…. 16. After he “defected” to the Soviet Union in 1959, bragging to U.S. embassy personnel in Moscow that he would tell the Russians everything he knew about U.S. military secrets, he returns to the U.S. without punishment and is then in 1963 given the OK to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union again! 17. Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by JFK, and the Warren Commission clearly wanted the truth hidden from the public to protect sources and methods of intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Earl Warren said, “Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security.” 18. CIA's Ann Egerter, who worked for J.J. Angleton's Counterintelligence Special Interest Group (CI/SIG), opened a "201" file on Oswald on December 9, 1960. Egerter testified to the HSCA: "We were charged with the investigation of Agency personnel....” When asked if the purpose was to "investigate Agency employees," she answered, "That is correct." When asked, "Would there be any other reason for opening up a file?" she answered, "No, I can't think of one."

Well, you suspect wrong. Here is how the FBI learned of a communist conspiracy to kill Kennedy: On 11/22/63, the FBI learned that Oswald had visited the Cuban Consulate and Soviet Embassy in late September 1963. The following day, the FBI learned that the Cuban Consulate employee who had helped Oswald, Silvia Duran, had been arrested by the Mexican police and was being brutally interrogated. They also learned that a woman by he name of Elena Garro had accused Duran of having an affair with Oswald, and that Oswald was friendly with several of Duran's associates. Elena Garro was held in protective custody for eight days for this. According to testimony Silvia Duran gave the HSCA, the Mexican police had suspected her of being the center of a communist plot to kill Kennedy. On 11/25/63, the FBI got a report that a man by the name of Gilberto Alvarado claimed to have seen Oswald accept $6500 in the Cuban Consulate to kill Kennedy. Much of his story corroborated Elena Garro's story. This story wasn't taken seriously at first because the date Alvarado gave was before Oswald's time in Mexico City. But later he corrected the date and the FBI took him more seriously. Add to the above the fact that Oswald had reportedly met with Valeriy Kostikov at the Soviet Embassy while he was in Mexico City. The CIA said that Kostikov was the KGB assassinations chief. Understandably, the FBI was worried that there might have been a plot between Oswald and Cuba and/or the Soviet Union. In fact, on 11/29/63, Hoover told Lyndon B. Johnson on the telephone: "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." None of this is speculation... I'm just reporting facts. If you do your homework, it's not too hard to figure out that it was the CIA whose operation it was to make it look like Cuba or the Soviet Union was behind the assassination. Earlier in this thread you wrote, "The cover-up doesn't have to be because of 'CIA involvement in planning the assassination'." Well it certainly is something the United States has to cover up if they don't want to go to war with Cuba or Russia. If you want to see details on what I wrote above and sources, I suggest you look through this article: Deep Politics III by Peter Dale Scott Begin reading at this subtitle: Oswald, Russia, and Cuba: How the Managed Oswald Stories Led to the Warren Commission

That is just one of the many things you don't know (but could know had you studied it) that makes you think your theory is great.

Yes, Denise, of course the cover-up had to do with the CIA's involvement in planning the assassination. That's not just speculation... that's a known fact. How does your theory account for the fact that the assassination was designed in a way that the Soviets and the Cubans would be blamed? The CIA made it look like Oswald was friendly with the Cubans and had been paid $6500 to kill Kennedy. And that he had met with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov. Yet in reality, the whole Mexico City affair, was done without Oswald even being there... it was done by Oswald impersonators. How do you explain that?

And Saint Allah replied, that is correct my son. You may enter the pearly gates.

Al Jazeera just reported that, when asked why Mossad found it necessary to make a mountain out of a mole-hill, Eli Kopter replied that it prefers its helicopter crashes to be Sunni-side-up. In contrast, Shiite-side-down crashes are better suited for land vehicles.

Oswald was indeed manipulated. The assassination plotters manipulated Oswald into taking the role of patsy. Somehow they got him to take a job at the TSBD. Not only that, but the plotters manipulated Ruth Paine into facilitating Oswald into taking that job. What kind of plotters could possibly have this kind of power over people? The only people I can think of are CIA officers who have operations going. Larry, I fear that you don't place enough importance on circumstantial evidence. There's a ton of circumstantial evidence pointing to the fact that Oswald was a CIA operative. Just look at all those goings on in Mexico City by... NOT Oswald, but by Oswald impersonators! What was that all about?? The evidence points to it being an operation designed to have the assassination blamed on Cuba and Russia. Along with Oswald. This is a resolved issue IMO.

My apologies.

First, I'm pretty sure that you meant Dr. Clark, not Perry. Here is what Dr. Clark said in the news conference: "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." He clearly was referring to a gaping exit wound on the back of the head and not the top of the head. Because he surmised the entrance wound for the gaping exit might have been the neck (throat) wound. Besides, all of his other early notes and statements support the back-of-head location. No, what Dr. Clark described is not what is seen in the Zapruder film. He saw a gaping hole in the back of the head. The Zapruder film shows a gaping wound at Kennedy's right temple. Now, what you yourself describe is indeed what the Zapruder film shows. Problem is, not a single witness saw what the Z-film shows... a gaping wound of the temple. Furthermore, the autopsy photos contradict the location of the Zapruder's gaping wound.

Your theory can be true only if: ...the Zapruder film has been altered, given that it shows the large blowout wound to be centered around the right temple, not above the right ear. (Which is what the Rydberg drawing shows.) ...the huge majority of ~45 gaping wound witnesses got the location wrong. Nearly every single one said the gaping wound was on the back of the head, not the top of the head above the right ear. So therefore your theory is ridiculous. Rather than trying to convince yourself that the WC didn't cover up the damning medical evidence which proves conspiracy, why not just accept the obvious fact that they did? Most CTers know that a gunshot from the front (or possibly side) caused the blowout in the back of the head seen by nearly every witness. Most CTers know that a few Z film frames were altered to remove the blowout wound from the back of the head and to create a new one near the right-temple area. Most CTers know that the autopsists misreported the gaping wound being above the right ear instead of the back of the head. Oops! these two alterations contradict each other. Mistakes occur in coverups, and in this one the autopsy report didn't place the gaping wound in quite the same place as the altered Z-film placed it!

Suppose a frame is removed to speed up the limo. Removal of the frame will result in a jerk in the image. The jerk could be camouflaged by introducing a fake camera jerk on the frame. (It will look as though Zapruder jerked the camera a bit.) Unfortunately, the edge of the frame will be jerked as well and this will reveal the alteration. However, that could be resolved by enlarging the whole film a bit, and then cropping the excess off of each frame so the frames are restored to their original size. The jerked motion around the edge of the jerk-added frame would also be cut off. Problem solved.

Yeah, according to himself. He also believes that Nostradamus could predict the future.