Sandy Larsen

It's all relative. 33,000 dead and 1.6 to 2.3 million displaced is a lot better than 133,000 dead and 1.5 to 2.2 million displaced. Saving 100,000 lives would be a spectacular success. Had Biden stopped military aid to Israel months ago, what would he do now to stop Netanyahu from invading Rafah? Something likely to result in hundreds of thousands of deaths due to the humanitarian crisis. Biden would have no leverage left now had he done what you and William (and Bernie, etc.) wanted him to do. True. But it appears there is indeed leverage in Biden threatening a change in Israeli policy and in halting military aid. I mean, how long has it been since Netanyahu announced Israel would invade Rafah? At least two months! I found this two-month-old news report of Netanyahu insisting he will invade Rafah: https://www.cbsnews.com/video/netanyahu-vows-to-invade-rafah-despite-white-house-concerns/ So, so far it appears that Biden's threat is working.

William, Everything you've said is an emotional response. There is absolutely no logic in it at all, and certainly no strategy. You don't like Biden and that is part of what triggers your emotional response. Your (emotional) response to 10/7 would have been to vote Yes to the UN resolutions and to quit shipping weapons months ago. That would make you feel good because you'd at least be doing something that you have the power to do. And you'd be pleased that nothing you did could be construed as aiding Netanyahu in his genocide of Gazan civilians. Well, I am not like you. None of my important decisions are driven by emotion. I base all my important decisions on what I need to do to maximize my goals. They are often very elaborate plans that require a great deal of study and logical reasoning to formulate. Sometimes I write computer programs to simulate what-if situations to aid me in making decisions. As an example, without going into detail, I have developed a tax scheme that increases my tax return by several thousand dollars annually. It's 100% legal and I'm pretty sure I'm the only person in America doing it. I'm very good at formulating strategies and that is the reason I had a career as an R&D engineer. Now, back to Biden and Bibi. You are wrong in thinking I have a resistance in seeing this "debacle" that you say you see in Biden's actions. I've long been a critic of the United State's preferential treatment of Israel over the Palestinians. But I certainly took Israel's side on 10/7. At that time I began formulating what I would do if I were in Biden's shoes. It didn't take long for me to come up with a plan... it's a very simple plan. Over time I could see that Biden's plan was the same as mine. First, commiserate with Netanyahu so as to gain his ear. Then, try to talk him into doing whatever possible to minimize civilian collateral killings. I would have abstained from some of the UN voting rather than voting No. But that's a nit. My big gun would be to threaten to withhold military aid from Israel. I wouldn't use that right away, because once used, the US would lose all leverage. When it became apparent that the flow of humanitarian aid was being hampered by Israelis, and at the same time Israel was stating its plan to invade Rafah, I predicted that Biden would threaten to stop the flow of military aid. Because the potential number of lives lost would be so great. At first all Biden did was threaten to change Israeli policy. But just recently he has indeed threatened to stop the military aid. Now the ball in in Bibi's court.

I predict that if either a large scale invasion of Rafah occurs, or Israel doesn't sufficiently facilitate the flow of humanitarian aid into Rafah, Biden will cut off all military aid. I don't know what Biden will do after that. But I'm sure he already has a plan in pace. I'm afraid Biden won't have enough time to save the Gazans from the Israelis. Perhaps the most he can do is pressure Israel into forcing Netanyahu out. After which maybe he can pressure Israel into accepting a two state solution. Which is Biden's ultimate goal.

William, Had Biden done either of those things, the only difference that would have made is that Netanyahu would have invaded all of Gaza as he pleased and done nothing to save civilian lives. And now Biden would have no bargaining chips left. At least right now there is some hope that Netanyahu will refrain from invading Rafah, and will allow the flow of humanitarian aid, with Biden threatening to cut America's military aid. That you don't see the obvious is quite astonishing to me. But then, many others seem not to see it either.

Failure is a relative term. 35,000 civilian lives are far too many to lose. In that sense, Biden's efforts have been a failure. However, we have seen that Netanyahu DID in fact do some things to reduce the loss of civilian lives. I have no doubt in my mind that he didn't do those things out of the goodness of his heart. He did them at the bidding of Joe Biden. Because of Joe Biden's strategy of commiserating with Netanyahu. Civilian lives have indeed been saved because of Biden's strategy. I can't prove it, but I believe that tens of thousands of lives have been save. And I would call that a spectacular success. If anybody wants to persuade me that Biden's efforts were a spectacular failure, they will first have to convince me that some other plan -- short of an American war against Israel -- would have spectacularly stopped Netanyahu's killing of civilians.

I know exactly what Pat's point is. He read the following two statements in Dr. McClelland's admission note: "The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea." "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." Pat latched onto the fact that -- unlike all the other doctors and nurses at Parkland hospital -- McClelland didn't specify the location of the massive wound. So what Pat decides to do is to make McClelland the one-and-only Parkland witness to agree with him on the massive wound location. How does he do that? By conflating the two wounds into one! Which means that McClelland, in Pat's mind, saw a massive wound on Kennedy's left temple! Oops! That doesn't work out quite right, because it's on the wrong side of the head! So Pat decides to move the left temple wound to the right temple. Voila! Now Pat has in hand a Parkland witness that agrees with him on the location of the massive wound! Well, sort of. You see, Pat doesn't believe the massive wound is on the right temple... no, he believes it is above the right ear. But hey, at least Pat has succeeded in moving the wound away from the back of the head, which is where all the other Parkland professionals placed it. And where all of Pat's nemesis researchers place it. Of course, this is all a lie. If you read McClelland's WC testimony, or anything else he has ever said or any drawing he has ever made, you will discover that he ALWAYS specified the location of the massive wound to be on the back of the head. You will also discover that McClelland never actually saw the entrance wound in the left temple. He has ALWAYS said that Dr. Jenkins pointed to a wound being there... something that Jenkins himself has corroborated. And yet, Pat has continued insisting that McClelland saw a massive wound on the right temple and no wound on the back of the head. Even after the multiple times I and Keven Hofeling have shown him that he is wrong. What you apparently can't grasp is that Pat made a false statement when he posted this: "Dr. McClelland saw a wound on the temple and not on the back of the head." Pat has a following and people believe what he says to be true. In particular when he doubles down on something after it has been shown to be false. This is bad for the anti-WC cause . (I can see why you want to defend Pat.) And that is the reason I have decided to clamp down on deceptive tactics. In this case, Pat violated a forum policy and so I was able to penalize him. Having said that, I will point out that Pat CAN hold and express his opinion about Dr. McClelland, regardless of how intellectually dishonest that is. But he's going to have to state it as being his opinion or belief. He can't state it as fact and expect not to be penalized for it.

Thanks for the corrections and clarifications! Do you know where any of the JCS were while LBJ was flying back to Washington? Do you know if Harriman told Bundy about the the supposed Kremlinologists thing prior to Bundy radioing LBJ?

@Jean Ceulemans @Tom Gram I've never said that Pat Speer, or anybody else, can't state their opinions. Of course they can. People can have their own opinions but they can't have their own facts. What Pat said was a demonstrable falsehood. He's been warned several times that it's a falsehood and he continues to state it as fact. He stated it as a fact once again in this thread. I once again proved it to be a falsehood. Posting demonstrable falsehoods is against forum policy, and so I penalized Pat for doing that. Do you think we should allow forum members to post falsehoods while representing them as facts?

And, of course, it is YOU (and you alone) who now gets to decide who has "lied" and who hasn't, is that it? Any member can call out another member for posting demonstrably false information as though it were true. However, in doing so the member must prove that the information is false. If you think I've lied, prove it and I will remove what I said.

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.