Sandy Larsen

Good luck trying to convince Pat (or any anti-alterationist) of any of what you say, no matter how obvious it is to most of us. Nearly all of the 50 blowout wound witnesses said the wound was on the back of the head, and Pat thinks they are all wrong. It is statistically impossible for that many to be wrong, but Pat's irrational dogma keeps him from being swayed by that.

Click on David's second link. On the page that comes up, click the article named "Meek, Boylan and Bleau JFK Assassination Research Project." This will load a PDF file showing the poll results.

Thanks to all the people who made the poll happen! The results are very interesting.

What's the significance of Boston? I seemed to have missed that.

Shame on those of you who mocked Robert's work. By deleting his OP, Robert has decided not to "cast pearls before swine."

BTW, I'm not a believing Mormon. I believe only what is in the New Testament.

I don't know if you want me to hold off from answering your following question or not. I'm not really concerned with church attendance. It's a personal choice for everybody. But I do want to make a point that seems to favors religion and church attendance: I live in Utah County, which is in central Utah. Although Salt Lake County is technically the center of Mormon leadership, Utah County truly is the center of Mormonism itself. It is where Brigham Young University is located, and it has the highest rate of LDS membership in the country -- 88% I just found. There's an LDS church building every several blocks. I believe that a majority of residents attend church weekly. You get the point... Utah County is VERY religious. Utah County also has one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Utah State as a whole is ranked the fourth safest state, and Utah County is by far the safest heavily-populated county in the state. The point I am trying to make is that it appears that Mormonism has a positive effect on its followers, in terms of lowering their propensity to commit crimes. (Though it also helps that Utah County's poverty rate isn't through the roof... though it's not low either.) Having made my point, I'm not sure that the same can be said for all Christian denominations.

Well shame on that Biden for eating an ice cream cone! Jeez Doug, I can't believe how anti-Biden you have become.

I agree 100%, William.

Pure speculation... Maybe Oswald was removed from the custody of Emil Gardos during one of his legal battles. Maybe when he was deported. FBI didn't know what to do with him, but CIA said hmm, we have some ideas for a Russian speaking kid with no known relatives! P.S. Jim, great find in that newspaper article, about Gardos never having a job. Perfect match for Oswald's "father" described in the FBI report! The more I learn about and think about the FBI report, and related information, the more convinced I'm becoming that you guys have explained the FBI report accurately. The only thing that bugs me about all this is why the boy would have been called Lee Harvey Oswald while he was still being cared for by Gardos. Or, if that wasn't the case, how Elizabeth Bentley knew that the boy was the same person as the later Lee Harvey Oswald.

While it is true that I refer to the contemporary crosswalk lines in my presentation, I at no time considered them when I was doing my analysis. I did my analysis first. After I had concluded that Officer Baker veered to his right, then I wrote the presentation. I was while writing my presentation that I noticed that Baker and the two women crossing the street were following the lines of the contemporary crosswalk. BTW FWIW, of course there was a crosswalk there in 1963. It was unmarked, but people did routinely and legally cross there.

Oops! It turns out I made a mistake in my re-evaluation. Had Baker NOT veered to the right, he would have hit the outer TSBD wall to the east of the mailbox. I was right the first time. And Baker did veer to the right... Alan's evidence-shaping notwithstanding.

This is one of those cases where there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that one can "connect the dots" and arrive at precisely what happened. I love it! If researchers would only open their minds and shape their theories to fit the evidence rather than shaping the evidence to fit their theories, they would discover that it IS possible to discover the facts behind what some believe to be insurmountable mysteries in the case of the JFK assassination.

I did no such thing. I didn't use crosswalk lines to perform my analysis. I merely noticed and noted, after my analysis was completed, that Baker and the two woman followed pretty closely the lines of today's crosswalk. I never claimed that Baker suddenly moved laterally. He was in the process of veering to the right on his last step. So he was still approaching the steps, but not at the same rate as before. And he had turned enough that we don't have a clear view of his butt the way we do of the two women. I just spent some time studying more carefully all the clips I created for my analysis (many of which I didn't use in my presentation) and I will grant you this much: I now agree with you that Baker's initial path -- had he not veered right -- is very close to what is shown in the animated GIF you posted. He would have hit the outside wall of the TSBD right between the east side of the steps and the mailbox area. Again, had he not veered right.

If Oswald's getting a TSBD job really came about the way the official narrative says, then I think the question about the job being available or not is splitting hairs. Not really important. But the fact that the plotters needed the patsy to be working at a designated place for the shooting tells me that the plotters must have had control over the whole process of Oswald getting the job. Since the plotters were likely CIA, I believe that Oswald, Ruth, and Truly (or somebody with a great deal of influence over Truly) were all CIA assets. And that Ruth's handler instructed her to call Truly, Oswald's handler instructed him to do what Ruth told him to do, and that Truly was likewise told. And Oswald got the job that way. (BTW, I believe also that they were all compartmentalized, and didn't know that each other was CIA.) That way they could tell an "innocent" truth about how Oswald got the job, even though it was really the CIA plotters who got the job for him.

No. What I did was look at the Darnell clip carefully and noticed, among other things, that we were looking at Baker's profile, and not his butt side. Which told me that he had veered to his right. The difference between you and me, Alan, is that you shape the evidence to fit your theory whereas I shape my theory to fit the evidence.

What makes you think there wasn't? In any event, people generally know where a crosswalk is without one actually being painted in. They generally don't terminate at a business's front door, but at a sidewalk leading away from the crosswalk. The east edge of the brick road constituting Elm Street Extension served as the western boundary of the natural crosswalk.

Justice ILikeBeer Justice BackStabus Justice Corruptus

Here, I fill in your blanks with bold text: The Israelis are not as piously religious as I had thought, so they are grievously violating the Jewish principle of "an eye for an eye" (exacting punishment that is commensurate with the crime) by killing so many Gazans. (Not to mention violating their religious belief in "loving your neighbor," when it comes to the collateral killing and maiming of Gazans, and causing them to suffer.)

It's not bizarre. He could continue running straight until he's on the sidewalk, and then follow the sidewalk to the intersection. Or he could veer to the right a little early, thus taking a shortcut to the intersection. Which he did. Nothing bizarre in that.

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?