Sandy Larsen

You nailed it, Jim. Both in how DVP jumps from one argument to the next, simply ignoring the ones he can't argue; and in how he and others like CBS change the rules, and then STILL can't win.

You surely aren't relying on the wholly UNreliable paraffin (cheek) test, are you? I am relying on the very reliable neutron activation analysis done on the paraffin casts. Which showed negative for Oswald, yet positive for seven out of seven control subjects who fired a similar rifle.

Oh really? Then how do you explain the evidence that shows that Oswald did NOT fire the Carcano rifle that day?

knowing you as someone who has failed miserably with internet book publishing PR (Reclaiming History by Vin da-Bugliosi), why do you insist you're correct here regarding Oswald's guilt? What are your cred's? Perhaps a little birdie told you so? My gosh guy, you sell fried chicken and day dream about playing American Legion baseball... coauthor 1 book, 11 websites, 6 blogs, 7 YouTube channels, 467,533 USENET/Internet forums-board postings. Yet never a public appearance. Anywhere! I mean, what's wrong with this picture, Dave-the-nowhere-man? Dave's a real nowhere man Living in his nowhere land Believing all his nowhere "facts" like nobody He's as blind as he can be Just see's what he wants to see Isn't he like Vincent Bu' and Posner. Nowhere man, please listen You don't don't what you're missing Nowhere man, The truuuth you reject out of hand Dave, he has one point of view Listens not to me or you Believing only nowhere "facts" like nobody

Comparing Altgens 6 with the above, it sure seems that the green man has to be Black Tie Man. But the green man doesn't appear to be wearing a dark Jacket. Maybe the green man is Oswald, and Black Tie Man was pasted over him in Altgens 6 to hide him. Don't mind me.... I'm just cavalierly speculating. But seriously, isn't the green man awfully small? He makes PM look large. And BTW, where's Frazier? He seems to be neither in this nor in Altgens 6.

Where did Black Tie Man go? He hasn't been pasted on yet. He's still waiting in some CIA photo lab. But seriously, Robert, do you still believe PM is holding a camera? It sure looks in the above GIF like he's lifting a camera. But I'm not sure he's lifting both arms. One arm seems to go up higher than the other. I'm wondering what your thoughts are now.

Thanks Michael. I can't tell if Lovelady in the left photo is standing at an angle or if the shadow hitting him is at an angle, thus making it look like he's at an angle. In the Altgens 6 photo I imagine he is leaning on the handrail.

Michael, Can you show me where I can see Lovelady in that awkward pose in Weigman or any other film or still? I haven't noticed it when looking at other clips.

I'd love to see somebody replicate Lovelady's pose. I'd also love to see an explanation for the black line across Lovelady's left cheek that extends on over to Black Tie Man. BTW, somebody has painted black that triangular area that is Black Tie Man's right shoulder, just to our right of Lovelady's neck. It's obvious if you load the photo into a photo editor and zoom way in. I've never noticed that before, so I believe it is a recent edit. Don't know why it was done. It was my edit to show the lean of Lovely. If he isn't leaning, perhaps you could explain why the right side of his t shirt is vertical and the left side isn't I agree, Lovelady is leaning. I've always recognized that.

I'd love to see somebody replicate Lovelady's pose. I'd also love to see an explanation for the black line across Lovelady's left cheek that extends on over to Black Tie Man. BTW, somebody has painted black that triangular area that is Black Tie Man's right shoulder, just to our right of Lovelady's neck. It's obvious if you load the photo into a photo editor and zoom way in. I've never noticed that before, so I believe it is a recent edit. Don't know why it was done.

I don't believe for a second that FBI agents accidentally reported that they listened to Mexico City tapes of Oswald and determined that the voice didn't match that of Oswald's. That stretches credibility too far. I have studied this incident further and I can see why it became so confusing. The CIA was bugging the Russian Embassy in Mexico. This, of course, was a very sensitive operation. It's one thing to bug an embassy located in one's own country. It's quite another thing to bug an embassy located in some other country. Both are sensitive operations, but the latter is sensitive on a whole different level. Apparently FBI agents in Dallas listened to the tapes and informed Hoover that the voice didn't match Oswald's. Later it was realized that the bugging program was in danger of being exposed and the FBI had to do some back-tracking. Yet at the same time, it was vital to the security of the United States to understand if Russia was somehow involved in the assassination. The following is from a memo Hoover sent to Secret Service Chief Rowley on 11/23, which was included in the HSCA's top secret Lopez Report: …..The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to-individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald…. It is known that two Warren Commission staff members, David Slawson and Howard Willens, listened to the tapes during a trip they made to Mexico City in April of 1964,. They have admitted so to two prominent authors (Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics II, p. 12 and Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime, p. 277) as well as to Chief Council Jeremy Gunn of the ARRB. Due to the sensitive nature, their admission to Gunn was off the record. However, we know about it indirectly from testimony given by Anne Goodpasture (formerly of the CIA Mexico City Station) to the ARRB: Gunn. I have spoken with two Warren Commission staff members who went to Mexico City and who both told me that they heard the tape, after the assassination obviously. Do you have any knowledge of information regarding tapes that may have been played to those Warren Commission staff members? Goodpasture. No. It may have been a tape that Win Scott had squirreled away in his safe. [Anne Goodpasture ARRB testimony of 12-15-1995, p.147]. Source: The Fourteen Minute Gap: An Update

Well, I sort of see a guy who seems to be standing up on something right next to the vehicle that is keeping him raised up. Years ago, before I began reading books on the assassination, I came across an article or something where it was explained that a vehicle had been driven and parked up in that area. I only vaguely remember reading it. I thought it was some kind of work truck, maybe with a covered back. Reading that left me with the impression it was white, but I'm not sure of that. The truck was obviously significant in some way. (Maybe someone was supposedly shooting from it. Or it belonged to Ruby. Something that I now can't recall.) Does this ring a bell with anybody? I haven't seen anything about it since, and this photo reminds me of the story.

Ron, Admittedly I sort of dismissed what you said at first, thinking that surely a person could get emotional when speaking of the death of someone they knew, especially if they were close to the person. But after giving it more thought, I think you may be on to something. I hate to admit it, but I am more emotional than most men I've known. For example, I was so choked up at my wedding that I could barely say my vows. Yet when speaking of my parent's deaths, I don't weep. (I was very close to them.) Oh, I did at first. But not a year later. And certainly not ten years later. From reading what General Taylor's son wrote about him and his emotional response, I can't help but think that the General must have really struggled over the circumstances surrounding Kennedy's death. From reading the Wikipedia article on General Taylor, I come away believing that he was loyal to both Kennedy brothers. (One of Robert Kennedy's sons is named after the General.) My gut feeling is that he was out of the loop on the assassination. But I believe that he knew after it happened that it was orchestrated by those around him. What a predicament that put him in... having to go along with a cover story he knew was a lie, and having to continue working with those who were behind the killing. I can only imagine how all this must have repeatedly played itself out out in General Taylor's mind over the months and years following, and how it must have adversely affected him. BTW, Kennedy replace General Lyman Lemnitzer with General Taylor as Joint Chiefs of Staff not long after he rejected Operation Northwoods, which General Lemnitzer had approved. I'm sure that Lemnitzer didn't take this lightly.

Quoting Vince Bugliosi.... "For years, conspiracy theorists have written books about the Central Intelligence Agency's involvement in the assassination of JFK. And as conspiracy theorist E. Martin Schotz, a mathematician and practicing psychiatrist, puts it, "I and other ordinary citizens know, know for a fact, that there was a conspiracy [to murder Kennedy] and that it was organized at the highest levels of the CIA." The fact that Schotz and his fellow conspiracy theorists haven't been able to come up with any evidence connecting the CIA to the assassination or Oswald has not troubled them in the least. David, Who did Vincent Bugliosi believe impersonated Oswald in telephone calls to the Russian Embassy and Cuban Consuate in Mexico City? The former call linking Oswald to KGB assassin Valery Kostikov? Oh I know... that was just a typical prank played on tourists by the local Mexican boys! (Source) Why did E. Howard Hunt spill his guts on his deathbed regarding the Big Event, and name several men associated with the CIA? (Note that I don't believe Hunt had direct knowledge of much of what he said, due to compartmentalization and because he didn't have "the need to know." But, having been in that business for a time, I know how things can be pieced together after the fact. I did a little of that myself, and I'm sure someone in as high a position as Hunt, for as long as he was, would have been able to do much, much more. And did.) Then there is CIA agent David Atlee Phillips confession to his brother, over the phone, that he was in Dallas the day of the assassination. His brother knew that he was confessing to being involved in the assassination, and hung up on him. David Atlee Phillip's involvement is supported by Antonio Veciana's identification of Phillips as Maurice Bishop, who he saw meeting with Oswald in Dallas in the late summer of 1963. (One of Phillips colleagues, a CIA case officer named Ross Crozier, told HSCA investigators he was "almost certain" that Phillips had used the name “Maurice Bishop.”) (Source) These are just a few of the CIA connections that I recall at the moment.

Sandy I believe you are wrong about Lovelady's shoulder. I'm sure you meant his left shoulder rather than his right. He is leaning forward at an angle similar to the guy in this photo. Ray, The white-haired guy you show leaning over is doing so in a way completely different than Lovelady. Regardless, using him as an example actually supports what I am saying. He still has a left shoulder, Lovelady doesn't. Because the Tie Man cut-out has been hastily pasted over Lovelady's left shoulder. Not to mention also over part of Lovelady's left cheek.

There are many people who would disagree. Likewise MIC. Are they right? Are they wrong? That's what this Forum discusses. I think a person would have to be rather uninformed, misinformed, dull, or naive to dismiss the likely involvement of some domestic intelligence group in the assassination, the CIA being the most likely IMO. (The same may be true of MIC involvement... that I do not know. I haven't read as many books as others here, and haven't familiarized myself with the topic. So I readily admit being uninformed and naive regarding MIC involvement.) Of course, everybody here is free to believe what they want and to argue their case.

Andrej, The man whose profile we see next to Lovelady in Altgens 6 cannot be Bill Shelley, in my opinion. Shelley was slender and the guy in the photo isn't.

Jim, CIA involvement is obvious. Military involvement... the fact that a general presided over the autopsy strongly suggests a military involvement. (I don't see any reason why Johnson would choose a general to handle the autopsy for the purpose of the cover-up. Therefore it seems that the general's involvement was part of the assassination plot.) Industrial... what evidence is there for this component of the MIC? If there is no industrial component to the assassination, then it is a military coup. Right? And if that is the case, then it was the military that solicited the services of the CIA and not the other way around. I think that is the way a military coup normally works. If there is an industrial component, then it gets more complex. Unless... Could it have been a military coup, where the military had the interest in keeping productions of arms (i.e. industrial component) going? If so, then it would have the industrial component, but it would still be considered a military coup. This may sound like a word game, but really it's important. Because it is not known who initiated the coup. I feel it was either a small group of powerful people, or it was the military. It would be a lot easier to understand and figure out if it were the latter. Because we know who the military leaders were.

Thanks Tom, The 6ft shadow length I used was from Sandy's estimation. The 6 ft shadow I mentioned was a rough estimate, just glancing at my monitor. Shadows appeared to be about the same as people's heights. Shadow length is not needed for my proof, but the correct length (9.75 ft for a 6 ft person) is certainly useful. Shorten Baker's steps to 3ft and you have a difference of 3.75ft (26.25 - 22.5) added to Baker's shadow now equals 9.75ft. Or, move Truly's LOS position closer to the annex corner 3.75ft. Truly's position in relationship to the TSBD stairway is key. imo You can see that Truly's shadow is up on the sidewalk. I'd say Truly is about 8 ft from the sidewalk. And Baker's shadow was up to the top of the curb shortly after his last visible footstep appears. I'd say he is close to 9 ft from the sidewalk for his final step. I will calculate the distances more accurately below. chris More accurate calculations: Here is the formula indicating how far up a shadow will move on a vertical surface (curb) as an object (person) moves horizontally toward it: y = x tan(Θ) where: x is the horizontal distance the person moves toward the curb. y is how far up the curb the shadow will move as a result. Θ is the angle of the sun, with zero degrees being horizon level and 90 degrees being straight overhead. At 31.59 degrees altitude (as per Tom), and with a 6 inch curb height (as per Chris in Post 126), we have 6 = x tan(31.59) Solving for x we get 9.76 inches, or 0.813 ft. In other words, Baker and Truly need to be 9.76 inches closer to the curb just for their shadows to rise to the top of the curb. Since Baker's shadow is risen to the top of the the curb but is not (much) on the sidewalk, he is located 9.75 - 0.813 = 8.94 ft from the sidewalk. Assuming his height is 6 ft. Truly's shadow does extend onto the sidewalk IMO. I'd say about a foot. If so, and again assuming a height of 6 ft, he is standing 9.75 - 0.813 - 1 = 7.94 ft from the sidewalk. EDIT: My calculations here give distances from the curb in the direction of the shadows. The shadows, of course, are not perpendicular to the curb. So the azimuth angle relative to the curb needs to be taken into account in order to obtain the perpendicular distances from the curb. Without elaborating, a correction factor making this adjustment is given by cf = cos(180 - α) where: cf is the correction factor. Multiply the shadow-direction distance by this to get the perpendicular-distance. α is the azimuth angle. It is assumed the curb runs east and west. At 151.28 degrees azimuth (as per Tom), the correction factor is cf = cos(180 - 151.28) = 0.877 So Baker's adjusted distance from the curb is 8.94 x 0.877 = 7.84 ft And Truly's adjusted distance from the curb is 7.94 x 0.877 = 6.96 ft I don't believe I've made any mistakes here, but I would appreciate it if somebody would double check my work. EDIT 2: Changed curb height from 7 inches to 6 inches.

Andrej, FWIW, I also believe Altgen 6 has been altered. Even though it was released early and would have had to be altered quickly, I still believe it was altered. It's hard to believe that officials would release a photo that needed altering, but I still believe it's been altered. I believe it's been altered because: Lovelady's right shoulder is not all there. It simply doesn't look right. Regarding the fellow with the tie standing behind and to Lovelady's right, it very much appears that his image has been pasted there. Parts of him appear to be covering parts of Lovelady, like Lovelady's shoulder and even part of his cheek. Lovelady's left cheek shouldn't have a darker, shadow-like area there. (Nor a bright white area, which is also what I see on the Altgen6 I have. Not sure it's on all Altgen 6s.) So it looks like the guy's image was pasted there, and then someone attempted to blend it in with a pencil. I've seen similar things like this done before. It's pre-photoshop "technology." Of course, if the image of the man was pasted there, there had to have been a reason for doing so. What I've wondered is if Prayer Man could be Oswald, and if Oswald may have been visible in Altgen 6 to the side and behind Lovelady. If so, PM would have had to have been near the center of the entrance-way at that time Altgen 6 was shot. Anyway, I thought I'd mention this. If for no other reason than to give you encouragement on your Altgen 6 work. Good luck!

Sandy, Does Baker change his trajectory as he passes Truly? Baker begins changing trajectory before his nearest encounter with Truly, and continues to change after he's passed him. (But not because Truly is in his way.) If there is any single abrupt change, I believe it would be as he passes behind Very Tall Man. Just look at the blue lines on my GIFs. Those convey where I believe Baker's feet are at any given time. Though I do have two sets of blue lines, the first being where he would have been had he not veered to the right. The other is his true path at all times. Are you trying to convey that if Baker doesn't change his trajectory, he doesn't run into Truly? That's right. If he doesn't change trajectory, he ends up roughly at the postal box to the right of the TSBD entrance. Where do you believe Baker and Truly cross paths using this 1964 photo? I don't believe they cross paths at all. See my comment below. (See the beginning of my reply above.) In your red line above marked "Motorcycle," that line ends at the signal light post. Then a new red line continues across the Elm extension. The near end of the that red line, at the post, is where I believe Baker began his dash across the street. However, the far end of that line doesn't match where Baker would have ended had he not veered to the right. Had he not veered to the right, he would have ended up approximately at the postal box. Now, I do believe that the far end of that red line does correspond to something significant. I believe that Truly was standing on that red line, or close to it, about four or five feet from the sidewalk. BTW, I don't see any crosswalk lines painted on the pavement. Do you (or anybody else) know if there really were no lines? There does seem to be a change in the color of the pavement where the line should have been painted.

Tom, Not that I recommend what I'm using, but I use the Lunapic.com website for drawing lines and text on animated GIFs. It's actually not bad, but it hates anything over 10 GB in size. Also, it doesn't like large pictures (in numbers of pixels). So if I find have trouble, the first thing I do is resize the photo to a smaller size. Then it works. One really great feature of Lunapic that it has multiple levels of undo. When I'm done with Lunapic, I use EzGif.com to make the pixel size large again. Doing this increases the file size, but the limit on EzGif is 16 GB. I also use Lunapic to extract individual frames and to adjust the global frame display time. I also use a program I've installed on my PC call Microsoft GIF Animator. This is useful for individual frame display times, so parts of the video play back at different speeds. It's also useful for copying and moving frames around. And for single stepping the video. This program is no longer available, but I'd be happy to share it. It's less than 2 MB in size. To install, just move it to the folder of your choice and make a shortcut to the executable and put that where you want. It's easy to learn and use. But it crashes if the file size is too large. I'm not sure what the limit is, but it is somewhere between 10 GB and 14 GB. If the file works on Lunapic, then it works with Microsoft GIF animator. Judging by the work Chris Davidson does, I assume he's got much better software. If he doesn't, then he must have an awful lot of time and energy to accomplish what he does.

Tom, Here is Baker's 11/22 statement: Friday November 22, 1963 I was riding motorcycle escort for the President of the United States. At approximately 12:30 pm I was on Houston Street and the President's car had made a left turn from Houston onto Elm Street. Just as I approached Elm Street and Houston I heard three shots. I realized those shots were rifle shots and I began to try to figure out where they came from. I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building. As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, "Let's take the elevator." The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket. Baker implies that he entered the front of the TSBD by saying that he "followed the man to the rear of the building." I tend to find first-day statements more credible than later ones. So from reading this it appears that Baker didn't spend a great deal of time doing whatever else he was doing when he passed by the TSBD entrance. Well, maybe he did spend some time doing something else, and didn't mention it because it wasn't fruitful. But I admit that his statement makes it seem like he didn't spend a lot of time doing something else. EXCEPT for the fact that he saw several people standing inside the TSBD when he entered. To me that says that some time elapsed before his entry. Yeah, I'm pretty sure about that. (But I can be convinced otherwise with good arguments.)

You are right, sir! If Baker is running toward the sidewalk, then Very Tall Man must be facing the west. Does anybody believe Very Tall Man is facing the west as Baker passes behind him? (This is when Very Tall Man is facing both Baker and the face of the TSBD.) Click to enlarge!