Sandy Larsen

The point of my presentation is to show that Officer Baker's INTENT was not to run up the TSBD steps into the building, as the WC would have us believe. (Your "five extra seconds" is rather hard to believe, BTW.)

What crosswalk? The crosswalk we can see here: Baker ran along the left side of the crosswalk, as even you showed in the animated GIF you posted: Though you have his (initial) path's destination being closer to the TSBD steps than what Darnell shows.

This is a repeating clip of Officer Baker's last step. Click it to zoom in. I single-stepped through the whole video, noted where his foot hits the asphalt, and drew a blue line through those point to map out his path. His very last foot-hitting-the-asphalt is hidden by the Suit-Wearing Man in the foreground, and so I had to estimate that. You can see Baker about to step on the blue line just after it curves. It's important to look for and see him. I did the same thing with a Young Lady... I drew a red line through points where either of her feet hits the asphalt. And thus it represents her path. You can see her for only a short time in this clip because the Suit-Wearing Man in the foreground covers the view of her as he walks to the left. You can see her stepping on the red line at its very right end. It's important to look for and see her. Take note that the initial trajectories of Baker and the Young Lady are very close to parallel. That is to say, the read and blue lines are close to parallel on the left halves, before the blue line curves. Now, look at the lady. Which side of her do we see? We see her butt. The same is true of the older lady behind her, who is also following the crosswalk... we see her butt end. We see some of their right side as well, but mostly their butts. Now look at Baker. If he were continuing his initial path, we would expect to see primarily his butt end. But we don't! We see primarily his right side! No butt end. Another thing you can look for is the direction of his last step relative to the gray line I drew. You can see that his last step is parallel to the gray line. Well, I drew that gray line to show where the edge of the sidewalk is. If he were still running toward the TSBD, he would be stepping up onto the sidewalk with that last step. But as you can see, his foot is moving parallel to the gray line (sidewalk), not toward it. I'm afraid that Alan Ford is so married to his pet theory that he won't allow himself to see these things objectively.

I've seen Greg Doudna come to Ruth Paine's defense so many times that I was under the impression that she was accused of lying a lot to assassination investigators and the Warren Commission. But when I tried to make a list of her lies, I couldn't come up with much. So did she lie or didn't she? Did she plant any evidence? Of course, I understand that reported lies and deceptions will be largely allegations based on circumstantial evidence.

I respectfully disagree with both Jamey and Alan as to Officer Baker's path across Elm Street Extension. I do agree with Alan that Baker does initially run toward the mailbox area, but that he does that only because that is the direction of the crosswalk. But Baker does indeed veer to his right and toward the intersection of Elm and Houston at the very end of the clip. Anybody who reads and studies my presentation should be able to see that. If Baker isn't veering to his right at the very end, then why do we see a view primarily of his side, as opposed to seeing primarily his butt side, as we do with the girl who was running parallel to Baker's initial trajectory? And why does his path cross that girl's path at the very end? Here again is my analysis: Officer Marrion Baker's mad dash for the.... Dal-Tex building?

Oddly, the object appears out of nowhere. If it originated as part of the blob, then it disappears for a few frames and then reappears. Also odd is that, rather than falling inside the car, it lands on top of the door and melts into it.

I wonder if Peter Dale Scott had this in mind when he spoke of his Phase 1 / Phase 2 theory. Phase 1 was the Cuban/Russian plot, and Phase 2 was the lone gunman.

Hey Denny, Here's a thought. Suppose that the assassination plot was designed by the CIA. (This is what I believe.) And the goal of the plot was to create a pretext for invasion of Cuba or war with Russia... two things that the Generals wanted at the time. Suppose also that thee plan did NOT call for making it look like Oswald was the lone killer. So, for instance, the Feds wouldn't have taken JFK's body by force. Rather, the autopsy would have been performed by Dallas doctors. There are two possible ways the Johnson Administration would have proceeded after the assassination. They could have taken advantage of the pretext and attacked Cuba or Russia. Or they could have rejected the pretext, for fear of a potential WW3. Now, suppose they chose to do the latter. What would have happened after that? (First, I suspect that they would have figured out that the whole thing was a CIA operation.) Would the government have told the American people about the Cuban/Russian plot? Of course not. Because if they did, there would be an public outcry against those countries and a demand for retribution. So the government would have covered up the Cuban/Russian plot. Naturally the American people would have expected there to be a thorough investigation. Something that the CIA plotters would NOT have wanted to happen. Right? Because they were the perpetrators! The CIA plotters were not stupid. They considered that the above scenario might happen. So what they did was build into their plot a way for the government to blame Oswald in the event that they didn't act on the pretext for invasion/war. In order to do that, they needed to clean up right away, after the assassination, any OVERT evidence of a conspiracy. For example, entrance bullet holes on the front side of Kennedy's head. They had to control the autopsy. That way, to the American people it would look like a lone gunman killed Kennedy. But to the government -- whose FBI was uncovering evidence of a Cuban/Russian plot -- it would look like just that! I just recalled your Overt/Covert theory (a few posts up), and re-read it. What I'm saying is almost the same as that. The difference being that you believe the plotters ultimately did NOT want to have an invasion/war, and I believe they ultimately DID want that, but weren't obliged by the Johnson Administration.

Ron, First, thanks for studying my presentation. When I made that presentation, I was still open to the possibility that an encounter between Officer Baker and Oswald did occur on the second floor. However, because of what I found and presented in my Darnell study, I was convinced that the encounter must have occurred significantly later than what the Warren Commission said. At the time, I was a new researcher and didn't understand the implications of a later encounter. I began reading the statements of Baker and others involved in that story (like Vickie Adams, Billy Lovelady, and Bill Shelley). It was then that I began have doubts that the encounter ever even occurred. Eight years have passed, and I've believed for most those eight years that there was no such encounter, and that it was just a WC fabrication designed to place Oswald at a certain location at a certain time. Bart Kamp's discovery of the Hosty's P. Parade note was the last nail in that chapter's coffin. It is clear now that the second floor encounter never occurred, and that Oswald was likely out on the steps of the TSBD during or near the time of the shooting.

Kirk, I don't know why you are so bent out of shape. I'm not an Israel scholar, and don't know a lot about Jews. I discovered the other day that pious Jews, like pious Christians, believe it is a commandment to love one's neighbor. Wanting Palestinians to be killed is hardly loving one's neighbors, and yet a lot of Israeli Jews are in favor of that, apparently. In addition, the religion teaches the principle of "an eye for an eye," which their asymmetrical war with Hamas is in gross violation of. So I figured that Israeli Jews are either largely ignorant of their beliefs and/or aren't believers. Or maybe they are knowledgeable believers who don't follow what the believe. I then found that poll that shows that most Israelis are not religious, which (roughly) supports what I'd figured. (Of course, that are a lot of exceptions and nuances to that that should be considered. But I'm writing a forum post, not a doctoral thesis or a scholarly book.) For some reason you take exception to this. Well, okay. Regardless of what you think, I think what I said is perfectly reasonable... a good first approximation, as engineers like to put it. I would never be pro-genocide, neither now that I'm a believing Christian, nor earlier when I was agnostic. That level of hatred is not in me. And BTW, I have never -- not a single instance in my lifetime -- placed myself above others because of my religious beliefs. (Or my religious non-beliefs, back when I was agnostic.) I don't know where you got that idea. I was incensed after 9/11. Yet I wasn't in favor of killing Arabs. I wasn't in favor of any war that would be high in collateral damage. In fact, I wasn't in favor of any war given that we were attacked by individuals. And by the way, this has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. Also, I don't know what position I have that you are talking about. Who says I'm not for a ceasefire? And who says I'm holding against non-religious Jews that they aren't ready for a ceasefire? I do hold it against those people who are for Palestinian genocide, (or Israeli or Jewish genocide) regardless of how religious they are, and regardless of how much their loss was in the 10/7 attack. I don't have any religious hypocrisy. My beliefs now are the same as they were when a was areligious. If there is "religious hypocrisy" in any of my statements, it is only because it is poorly worded or misunderstood.

Well, if Trump's high poll numbers amid his court cases are any indication, Boebert's son's crime wave should help her in her MAGA bid for re-election!

Ha! Exactly!

Thanks for that info, Ron. I'm not going to put it on my list, though, because it looks like it just could have happened that way accidentally. The files were discovered and so Michael wormed his (or Ruth's) way out of it. After which he had no choice than to follow up when asked about it in his WC testimony.

I agree with you 100% Denny. And yet the evidence for the Cuban/Russian angle in the plot is very real. This is a quandary that I've been trying to resolve. It's good to see that I'm not the only one who recognizes this problem.

Matt, If you wish to respond to posts in this thread, please, no bloviating. Keep it on topic. Mere coincidences are not "on topic."

Matt didn't heed my request. So I have created a thread dedicated to his posts and to posts of those who wish to respond: Matt Cloud's compilation of Harvey & Lee related coincidences and some theories explaining them I have moved most of his posts there.

Well it must be true if it's in Country Road Magazine!

Well this says he had TWO daughters, was from Lubbock, Texas, and went to Texas Tech -- where Tina and I think J.D. went. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Tippit So, again, we have biographical ambiguities, uncertainties, inconsistencies ... I don't see any inconsistencies between your source and mine: My source states that Jack D. Tippit had two sisters and one daughter. Your source states that Wayne Tippit had two daughters. I don't know of any source that states that Jack D. Tippit and Wayne Tippit were brothers.

A bunch of websites merely repeating gossip.

Denny, You believe much the same as a lot of JFKA researchers, that the communist angle in the plot was a poison pill designed to get the government to cover up the assassination rather than investigate it. I don't believe in that theory because evidence for the commie angle continued coming forth well after the Johnson Administration decided on the coverup. And Angleton and David Phillips continued pushing the commie angle, I think for years. That's a good point about the rifle. I will put it on my list.

I haven't said anything that smears Ruth Paine. I believe she worked for the CIA because she felt it was her patriotic duty to protect the world from communism. And I believe that she was willing to lie for the Warren Commission in order to protect the world from a potential WW3.

I want to rephrase my questions, this time being more precise and blunt so there can be no misunderstanding: After the assassination, what falsehoods did the CIA coup plotters ask Ruth Paine to do or say to make it look like Oswald was in cahoots with the Cubans and Russians? After the assassination, what falsehoods did the FBI/WC ask Ruth Paine to do or say to make it look like Oswald alone killed Kennedy.

There's no evidence of either Kennedy having an affair with Marilyn Monroe. Just gossip. And I think a claim by one or two of Monroe's friends.

I agree with Elton.

@James DiEugenio Jim, do you know if there is any truth to what Robert said about Bobby pulling Marilyn off the set of her movie so she could sing "Happy Birthday" for JFK, and that this caused her problems with the studio bosses?