Sandy Larsen

I can give two possible ways that could have happened. The CIA made it look like the Cubans or Soviets paid Oswald to kill Kennedy, to create a pretext for war against them. The government suspected the CIA of doing this, didn't want to go to war, and so chose to reject and cover-up the conspiracy evidence. The plotters created a PDS Phase 1 / Phase 2 scenario pair. They chose Phase 2 after the assassination, and so the assassination looked like the work of a lone nut.

We know for a fact that some pre-autopsy surgical chicanery was performed on JFK's head a mere few hours after the assassination. It is inconceivable that a post-assassination-initiated coverup could have possibly triggered that early surgery. It's much more likely that the surgery was preplanned. And, as I said in my prior post, the purpose of it was likely to make the autopsy consistent with the Phase-2 lone nut scenario. Roger is right.

Jeremy, I quote you above showing your high regard for Peter Dale Scott's work because he bases his conclusions on "actual documentary evidence. Very good... I feel the same way. Scott's theory has two phases, where Phase 1 is a conspiracy between the Cubans/Soviets and Oswald to kill Kennedy, and Phase 2 is a non-conspiracy where lone-gunman Oswald kills Kennedy. The plotters are able to manage which of the two phases are accepted/believed by the FBI in their investigation. According to Peter Dale Scott, whose work you hold in high esteem, the plotters could have chosen Phase 2 -- lone gunman -- had they wanted to. So are you saying here that the plotters had already chosen Phase 1 -- conspiracy --by the time the shooting with multiple shooters had begun? That couldn't be. Because if they had already chosen to go with Phase 2 -- lone gunman -- before gunshots, they wouldn't have later proceeded to go with Phase 1 instead... which is what they did with Gilberto Alvarado when he stated a couple days later that he had seen Oswald being paid $6500 in the Cuban Consul to kill Kennedy. My point is that the evidence indicates that the decision between Phase 1 and Phase 2 to be made by the plotters wasn't meant to be made for at least a few days after the killing. (Although, as Roger has pointed out, the decision to blame only Oswald was made just hours after the shooting and called into Air Force One by McGeorge Bundy. It was made by someone other than the plotters. That is to say, before the plotters had decided on Phase 1 or Phase 2.) It is clear to me, and the evidence shows, that the plotters decided that "the best evidence" for the case needed alteration to make it compatible with Phase-2 (lone nut), whereas the rest of the coverup could be done ad hoc. That way, if Phase 2 was chosen, the altered [best evidence" would indicate that Oswald did it alone, thus making it easy to blame Oswald. Which would allow the government to shut down any further investigation... thus providing cover for the plotters. "The best evidence" were 1) the autopsy documentation and 2) the films that had a good view of the wounds. So these were taken control of and altered as best as possible to make them fit the lone gun scenario.

That 57% unfavorable for Biden means nothing as far as the voting will go. Most the Democrats in this room would give an unfavorable rating at the moment. But I guarantee that they all will vote for Biden in November. The same can't be said for Republican votes and Trump. For multiple reasons, one being that Democrats are more picky than Republicans. They complain more about their candidates. Just look at you and me... I like both Hillary and Biden, you like neither.

I've got the perfect solution to the Biden issue. It should make everybody happy. For the folks who think Biden is too old, let's choose another candidate. Even though we have no idea if the change will improve or worsen the odds of beating Trump, and even though changing candidates midstream is usually a bad idea. The next step is to choose a candidate to replace Biden. The best choice would be Kamala Harris, given that she polls better against Trump than any other candidate. (With the exception of Biden.) Okay now, here is where my idea has a twist. As I mentioned, changing candidates midstream is usually a bad idea. Wouldn't it be better if we could wait and see how Biden does in the second debate before tossing him out? In fact, wouldn't it be great if we could wait till just before election day to see if ANYTHING bad happens? Actually, there IS a way to do just that! Simply let the Biden/Harris ticket run its normal course. If anything awful happens, like another poor debate performance, simply swap Harris in for Biden as the presidential candidate at that time. There's no need to decide now.

Sure sounds like a spook to me.

What format is the document in?

I don't know why anyone would want to bring "poor-quality stuff" to the EF Forum. MAGA information tends to be "poor-quality stuff." If it says "Moderators" below his avatar photo, then yep, he's a moderator!

@Roger Odisio Roger, any time you explain why something in your story had to be the case, then that implies that what you are explaining is speculation. In fact, it is better than pure speculation because it has a reason for being. But what you have described is in fact a theory, given the fact that there are instances of speculation in it. There is nothing wrong with theories. For those of us who accept the fact that the Z film has been altered, your theory serves well in explaining how the alteration was done in such a short period of time. To me your theory looks viable, and so I accept it. Your critics don't accept it, and that's fine. But if they want to stop others from accepting it too, they need to prove that something is wrong with it. After which you can either update your theory accordingly, or you can show they are wrong.

As I keep pointing out, what Roger claims happened to the Z film is a theory, and that speculation is ALWAYS used in theories. Roger, if you want to stop Jeremy from pointing out the parts of your theory that are speculative, you could try prefacing each of those parts by saying "it could be," "I believe that," or some such thing.

Yes, Jenkins does indeed agree that illicit surgery took place, or at least is inclined to believe it did. Here is what he wrote in his 2018 book, At the Cold Shoulder of History: I believe that the clandestine surgery / examination, first described by David Lifton and later by Doug Horne, resulted in the longitudinal scalp laceration that has previously been described in the original autopsy report. While this is outside my sphere of direct of knowledge, it does however lend some credence to Lifton's and Horne's beliefs in clandestine surgery / examination on the body before it arrived in the morgue for autopsy. (p. 115, Kindle version) BTW, this sure doesn't sound like Jenkins is upset with Horne the way you are, with you always pointing out that Horne repeatedly lies about Jenkins. It makes me think that you are misunderstanding or mischaracterizing something.

Oh, I see your point now. As a matter of fact, my dad went by the name Rey L. (not just Rey) and if you asked him what the L stood for he'd say that he'd been told it stood for Ludlow, which was his mother's maiden name! So I shouldn't have been surprised by your question. Anyway, it certainly is possible Stansfield Turner and I are related through a Stansfield ancestor. But if so, I am not aware of it.

Using your own standard of a researcher being labeled a liar... What about all your persistent lies regarding the 40 witnesses who said they saw a gaping wound on the back of Kennedy's head, while you persistently say they are wrong?

Because I've never seen Horne make an intentional mistake. For the record, none of this is inconsistent what I wrote in the post Pat is replying to. He's just ragging on Horne. As I said in my last post, Horne "making up facts" was a speculative part of his theory. There is nothing wrong with speculating when forming a theory or hypothesis... it is standard practice. Regarding the discrepancy between Horne's theory and Jenkins' account... either Jenkins is mistaken, or Horne's theory needs to be adjusted to account for the discrepancy.

Likely not related given that Stansfield was my great grandfather's last name, but Stansfield Turner's first name.

First, Horne didn't say anybody, including Jenkins, was kept out of the morgue for "hours." It was a matter of minutes. Second, the thing that you say Horne "invented from who cloth" was a speculative part of his theory. There is nothing wrong with speculating when forming a theory or hypothesis... it is standard practice. Third, regarding the discrepancy between Horne's theory and Jenkins' account... either Jenkins is mistaken, or Horne's theory needs to be adjusted to account for the discrepancy. As it turns out, Jenkins is one step ahead of Horne. You see, Jenkins happens to agree with Horne that illicit surgery took place. He just believes that the surgery took place at a location other than the Bethesda morgue. (Source: Jenkins' 2018 book, Kindle edition, pages 114, 115.)

My statistical proof doesn't rely at all on the reliability of witness statements, or on any other item Jeremy cautions about. It relies only on the odds that 40 out of 45 witnesses would agree upon any given location from a binary choice. In fact, the 45 witnesses don't even need to be witnesses for the proof to hold.

OMG Joe, those are incredible drawings! And with only high school art class... you definitely have a natural talent. I think you may be just as good an artist as my great grandfather (John Heber Stansfield) was. He was famous in his day and actually made a living selling his art. Self Portrait Springville Museum of Art

That wasn't your first drawing was it??

I've become a big fan of sketching since my 14 year old daughter began showing her great talent in doing that. And I must say that that is a very nice drawing of Garcia. I hope I remember to show Kimmi this drawing when she gets home.

Apparently they aren't as smart as one would think they should be.

I agree 100%. I like Joe Biden. But I would go along with ANY change if it guaranteed a win against Trump. Problem is, there is no guarantee. I believe that sticking with Biden is the safest choice at this late date.

Yes they are, if they want to be taken seriously. If a critic of a theory or hypothesis merely states that the theory is wrong, without showing something in the theory cannot be, then the critic is merely expressing an opinion. To have any impact whatsoever, the critic must show a serious problem with the theory.

I wasn't attacking Sandy; I was merely illustrating... Oh really? The link you posted, that would "embarrass" me (your words), wasn't meant to attack me? Oh please, I am well aware of the shaming tactics you use to discredit people who you disagree with but can't out-argue. Remember, I'm the one who got the moderators to enforce forum rules against some of your shaming tactics. My proof of the gaping head-wound location is that it is statistically impossible for 40 out of 45 gaping wound witnesses to corroborate each other by placing the wound in the very same location as each other, and yet be wrong. It is a mathematical proof. Now, let's see what Jeremy says my proof is equivalent to: My proof is no better than the evidence that the moon landing photos are fake? WTF? Jeremy is so desperate to win an argument that he comes up with BS like that.

Joe, Yes, of course there is a great deal of socialism in America. Thanks primarily due to Democrats. But socialism is a dirty word for Republicans. A lot of Republicans are still trying to get rid of well established, successful, and popular socialist programs like social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And now add to that Obamacare. If Bernie Sanders were to run for president, his self-proclaimed position as a socialist would be used against him big time by the Republicans. A lot of swing voters would be influenced by that negativity. A lot of people who like Social Security and Medicare are unaware that these are socialist programs. I'm astonished that you are unaware of American bias against socialism. Maybe you should live in a red state for a while. In 2019, 59% of Americans said they had a unfavorable view of socialism.