Sandy Larsen

Ben's obvious purpose for posting this is to attack his new enemy, NPR. I'm moving this to the Water Cooler.

Pot meet kettle. With a dose of sour grapes. So report yourself.

Keyvan, What makes you think that the photos, films, and x-rays are all legitimate? Saying that is like saying you know something is true because you read it on the internet. I don't believe I've done that. But jeez Keyvan, just because one part of a photo has been altered doesn't mean that the whole thing has been altered. You need to use your best judgement in deciding what to trust. BTW, deciding for nor no apparent reason that none of the photos, films, x-ray have been altered is not using sound judgement, by any stretch of the imagination. I believe you, Keyvan. What you just admitted to is that you have a preconceived notion, and will consider no other possibility because you are a closed-minded ideologue. Well, I've got news for you pal... It is easy for those of us with open minds to see that the location of the gaping wound in the Zapruder film is inconsistent with what we see in the autopsy photos. It is also easy for us to see that the location of the wound as described in the autopsy report is inconsistent with what we see in the Zapruder film. And ALL of these are inconsistent with where ~40 Parkland and Bethesda hospital medical professionals said they saw the wound. And yet, the one thing that is consistent between the location as indicated in the photos, film, and autopsy report is that the wound was NOT on the back of the head. Which is in stark contrast to where all the medical professionals placed it. Given that a back-of-the-head blowout wound indicates a shot from the front -- something that contradicts the lone gunman theory -- it is exceedingly obvious to those of us with open minds that the explanation for the inconsistency between the witness statements and the obviously illegitimate photos, film, and autopsy report is that the U.S. government altered the latter three as a part of their coverup designed to blame only Oswald. Furthermore, it is obvious to those of us with open minds that the reason for the inconsistencies between the photos, film, and autopsy report is that there was insufficient time to coordinate the altering of the three pieces of evidence so that they would be more precisely consistent with each other.

I've never had a discussion with the "Nix film study."

Apparently Keyvan doesn't know where the large blowout wound was located. Either that or he's afraid to answer.

@Matt Cloud, I've come to the conclusion that you cannot be reasoned with.

So Keyvan, Where do you believe the large blowout wound was located? And why do you believe what you believe?

Bill, Tommy Graves replied to your comment, as follows: When he said the above, Bagley didn't realize yet that Solie was a "mole" in the mole-hunting Office of Security, and that he had sent (or duped his confidant, protege, and mole-hunting superior, James Angleton, into sending) Oswald to Moscow as an ostensible "dangle" in a planned-to-fail hunt for "Popov's U-2 Mole" / "Popov's Mole" (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA -- the Soviet Russia Division. In fact, Bagley didn't start to think Solie might be a "mole" until Malcolm Blunt showed him some CIA documents which suggested that in April of 1964 (i.e., just two months after the CIA had started seriously interrogating Nosenko), Solie had tried to talk the Warren Commission's David Slawson into believing Nosenko was a true defector, that his 1962 and 1964 contradictions and incorrect statements could be explained as being due to 'stress, poor memory, language difficulties and/or too much alcohol," and that he should be allowed to testify to the WC (i.e., "the KGB had had nothing to do with Oswald in the USSR"). In other words, when Bagley (who died in 2014) said the above, he thought a "witting" Oswald had been sent to Moscow by the regular CIA as a "dangle" in a normal mole hunt. He didn't realize that, as has been shown recently by John M. Newman, an unwitting(?) Oswald was sent by a KGB-controlled part of the CIA as an ostensible "dangle" in a planned-to-fail mole hunt.

I much prefer my simple, innocent explanation to your overly elaborate, sinister one. BTW, how is it that when I speculate or give a simple explanation, you criticize it as being non-responsive, only a conclusion, only an assumption, etc.? But when you do the vary same thing, you think it's okay? Especially given that your speculation is way more elaborate than mine. Your speculation is far more speculative than is mine.

I don't know about your theory Matt, but in my theory the mention of Azcue's replacement in the Kostin Letter does NOT blow the cover on the CIA's monitoring operation of the Cuban Consulate, or of Eusebio Azcue. According to my theory, yes the letter was written by the CIA plotters... BUT the only thing the Soviets would think when they received the letter was that it was OSWALD who was aware of Azcue's replacement. Not the CIA. (Of course, Oswald was oblivious to the whole thing.) As a matter of fact, this dovetails nicely with how the CIA plotters made it look like Oswald was in cahoots with the Cubans! First, Elena Garro's accusations that Oswald was friendly with Silvia Duran and a bunch of her associates, and then Gilberto Alvarado's accusation that Oswald was paid $6500 in the Cuban Consulate for the killing. Well, the mention of Azcue's replacement in "Oswald's" Kostin letter made it appear that Oswald was VERY familiar with the goings on at the Cuban Consulate! So the Kostin letter accomplished two things. It showed the FBI -- in their assassination investigation -- that Oswald was dealing with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov; AND that Oswald was very familiar with the Cuban Consulate's goings on. No wonder J. Edgar Hoover seriously considered that a communist plot was behind the assassination.

Well what did you expect? You expected me to spell out exactly what happened, and give source material to back it up? Instead of expecting ME to do that, why don't you do it yourself? Well I thought it was reasonable to conclude that the CIA might have been aware of Azcue being replaced. And apparently I was right! Because David Boylan has shown in his post above that the CIA did indeed know of Azcue's replacement! Thanks David.

It's a pretty damn good conclusion. Why else would Scott want poor little secretary Silvia Duran AND a bunch of her associates taken in and questioned by the Mexican Police? Just because she spoke with Oswald? I mean, please! If you don't like my conclusion, fine. Think of it as reasoned speculation. It is a part of my hypothesis. Speculation is a necessary part of hypotheses and theories. My theory is that it was an element of the CIA who were the assassination plotters. In Mexico City, they use Oswald impersonators to paint a fake story of Oswald negotiating with the Cubans and Russians to kill Kennedy. I don't believe that Win Scott was involved in the plotting. I believe that it appeared to Scott that Oswald might have been involved with the Cubans in assassinating Kennedy. (Which explains why he had Duran arrested.) And that belief only increased (naturally so!) when he got word of Gilberto Alvarado saying that, while in the Cuban Consulate, he overheard Oswald being paid $6500 to kill Kennedy. Information to Excelsior might have been leaked by a corrupt police officer for profit. I can't think of any reason why the CIA, the CIA plotters, the U.S. government, or the Mexican Police would intentionally leak the story. No, I accounted for it. With reasoned speculation. It is you who have not accounted for it. Okay. let me know if you come up with anything.

Keyvan, Where do you believe the large blowout wound was located? And why do you believe what you believe?

Keven, Keyvan Shahrdar is obviously incapable of defending his beliefs. It's amazing that he has any opinion at all. Virtually every "best witness" to the gaping wound places in on the right side of the back of Kennedy's head. By "best witness" I mean one who had more than a unexpected quick glance at the wound, i.e. the few Dealey Plaza witnesses who saw the blowout headshot occur. In contrast, the best witnesses were the medical and other professionals at Parkland and Bethesda Hospitals. There were over 40 such witnesses. So how could Keyvan possibly believe otherwise? If he believes what the autopsists said, then he would believe the blowout wound was located as shown here: But if Keyvan believes that, then he must reject the gaping wound as depicted in the Zapruder film: Zapruder clearly shows that the gaping wound is located at the right temple. If Keyvan believes the gaping wound is located where the Zapruder film shows it, then he must reject this autopsy photo: The temple is fully intact here, and the gaping wound is located where the autopsists placed it, at the top-back of the head. Or possibly further back where 40 medical professionals placed it. No matter what a person accepts as the gaping wound location, he must accept that at least one of the images is fraudulent. That being the case, I don't for the life of me understand why they just don't accept the back-of-head location given by the 40 medical professionals. After all, it is statistically impossible for so many witnesses to all get it wrong. In contrast to photos and films, which history proves could be altered in 1963. From Mary Poppins, 1964.

I'm sure Meacham got the history wrong. But I think his presence in the documentary adds to its perceived credibility... he is well known among political junkies. (Not that I've seen the documentary.) Reiner certainly should have run a summary of his material past a knowledgeable person like Jim D. before producing the documentary. What a waste of time, money, credibility, and impact that he didn't take such a simple step.

First, let me point out that the Soviet Embassy couldn't have received the Kostin letter on the Nov. 9th because that is the date that Oswald (supposedly) wrote the letter. Surely it would have take a few days for it to be delivered. And who knows if the letter was even mailed the day it was written. That said, it occurred to me that perhaps the letter truly wasn't received by the embassy till Nov. 18. And perhaps the Soviets wanted to make that late delivery date clear in a CYA maneuver... having received the letter only four days before the assassination hardly gave the Soviets enough time to analyze the letter and notify American officials of potential foul play on the part of Oswald. I just saw in my notes the date that HTLINGUAL reported the intercepted Kostin letter, and that date is Nov 18, 1963. Which tends to support Nov. 18 being the date the embassy received the letter. Perhaps they had noticed signs of steam opening of letters from Americans.

My justification is simple: My working theory says that a CIA plotter wrote the Kostin Letter, in Oswald's name, and planted the letter. (i.e. it was sent to the Soviet Embassy in Washington and Ruth Paine had a copy.) Since the letter commented on Azcue being replaced, the writer of the letter -- a CIA employee -- had to have known about the Azcue replacement. End of Justification. No JFKA researcher knows how the writer of the Kostin letter knew about the Azcue replacement, right? So ANY explanation they give will be speculative. Which is fine if it is reasoned speculation. Speculation is a necessary part of hypothesizing. Though naturally, it is best to have a large number of factual data points in order to minimize the need for speculation

Right. On November 23, Mexico City CIA station chief Winston Scott asked the president of Mexico to arrest Silvia Duran because he suspected that the CIA plotters' plan that implicated Cuba and Russia might be true. Meanwhile, Elena Garro was reportedly taken into protective custody the very same day as a result of her protesting outside the Cuban Consulate against Duran. And she gave the fake story of Oswald being friendly with Duran and others. Silvia Duran had called the Soviet Embassy about Oswald, and she could have been told how Oswald had behaved there. So the Mexican Police may have been aware of the Soviet Embassy's goings on from Duran, and this could have been leaked to the Excelsior Newspaper as well. (My prior thinking has been that maybe nobody at all visited the Soviet Embassy. But in my mind it's becoming likely that an Oswald imposter visited there like one did the Cuban Consulate. Maybe the very same imposter visited both places.)

The only evidence we have of "Oswald" visiting the Soviet Embassy, that I am aware of, is the phone call made by an Oswald impersonator On October 1, 1963. That is the only call where the name "Lee Oswald" was given. In the call, the Oswald impersonator spoke in broken Russian to the embassy guard, saying that he had visited with an officer there on September 28. The guard suggested that the officer he had visited was Valeriy Kostikov. If a person actually did visit Soviet Embassy that day, I believe it was probably an imposter, just like the "Oswald" that visited the Cuban Consulate was an imposter. As for how the Excelsior newspaper got the information so quickly about the so-called Oswald visits, I suppose they could have gotten it from the Mexican police. After all, the Mexican police did hold Silvia Duran and a number of her friends for questioning, and did actually beat her, likely because she wouldn't admit to the charges made against her by Elena Garro, who was being held in "protective custody" at the time in a hotel. Garro's story painted Oswald as being a friend of Duran's and associating with her friends. So the story the Mexican Police got from Duran was the innocent/real one (according to their understanding), where Oswald was there to get a transit visa. (Not to negotiate an assassination deal with the Cubans and Russians.) Yes, I believe the Kostin letter was planted by the CIA in order to strengthen the evidence that Oswald had (supposedly) contracted with the Cubans and Soviets to have Kennedy killed. (Allegations made by Gilberto Alvarado.) As for the comment in the letter about Azcue being replaced: The CIA must have known about Azcue's replacement, or planned replacement. We don't really know if there was a timing issue as to the date of Azcue leaving, because when the Kostin letter said, "I am glad he has since been replaced," for all we know the CIA writer of the letter could have meant more specifically that the DECISION for his replacement had been made, and that soon the actual replacement will take place. Or it could be that the CIA writer of that letter simply made a mistake... he might have merely assumed that the replacement had taken place prior to his writing of the letter. Actually, I've never thought that Helms was one of the plotter. Though I suppose he might have been. But even if he wasn't, I don't understand how what he said would contradict my beliefs as I've stated them here. Maybe you can explain. First, Matt, I don't know if the following statement: “When sending the photocopies, say that the letter of November 9 [discussed above] was not received by the embassy until November 18, obviously it had been held up somewhere.” has anything to do with the Azcue replacement timing issue. The two dates, Nov. 9 and Nov. 18, might just be coincidences. Even if that sentence does relate to the Azcue timing issue, I don't see how the instruction of that sentence, given to Ambassador Dobrynin, supposedly resolves the timing issue in the Americans' eyes. Especially in light of the fact that the U.S. knew precisely the date of the letter and the date the Soviets received it, a fact that apparently the Russians were aware of (since they knew of the U.S. mail intercept program). What details? The Azcue replacement timing issue dates? The CIA knew that Azcue was going to be replaced. So why wouldn't the Soviets have not also known that? With the Azcue replacement date in hand, and the Kostin letter in hand, the Soviets had all the details that you've pointed out. No mole needed to get it for them.

Wow, I'm very impressed. I didn't think Johnson had it in him. Maybe the Democrats will save his Speakership from MTG and her sorry ilk.

Contrary to popular belief, statistics don't lie. But they can fool you. Even highly intelligent mathmeticians need to consult a statistician on occasion.

Mocking an Administrator is not wise. Even if it is minor and carries just a few warning points.

"pontificators who refuse to study the source material" = "people who disagree with me and won't tolerate my smart-ass remarks"

FWIW, I agree with Jim that it is obvious Oswald worked for U.S. intelligence. Most likely the CIA.

Matt, I intend on replying to this post of yours. At the moment I am not feeling up to it. (Health issues.)