Jump to content
The Education Forum

Sandy Larsen

Admin
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,184

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Sandy Larsen

  1. Sandy Larsen
    Pat, Why do you believe it would be necessary for Dr. Mantik to do tests on the equipment used to make the x-ray? Radiologists can read x-rays without knowing anything about the equipment used to make them. Furthermore, Dr. Mantik used the optical density of the petrous temporal bone as a frame of reference for all his measurements, thereby expressing them as ratios, thus taking into account variations in exposure levels and film processing.
  2. Sandy Larsen
    In chapter 18c I go through the earliest statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, and those who saw Kennedy in the limo, and there is a virtually unanimous agreement among them that the head wound was on the right top side of the head. This stands in stark contrast to the number of those who saw a wound in the middle of the back of the head. Which was zero. The Dealey plaza witnesses, like the Newmans, thought they saw blood gushing from the side of Kennedy's head. But what they actually saw was 1) back splatter from the temple-area entrance wound; 2) immediately followed by blood gushing from the exit wound at the right-rear of the head, which at this time was what the witnesses were looking at. Because, when Kennedy was shot in the temple, his head immediately turned to his left so he was facing Jackie. It happened so fast, and there was so much blood, that they didn't realize they were looking at the back of Kennedy's head, not the side. Look at the Z film frame-by-frame to confirm this, begining at 313, which is when the bullet struck. By frame 316 the back of the head was where the side of the head had been when the bullet struck only 166 milliseconds earlier. This is what I believe explains the discrepancy between the Dealey Plaza witnesses and all the medical professionals at Parkland. LNers like to say that the Parkland doctors didn't have time to see where the wound was. Well, they had a hell of a lot more time than the Dealey Plaza witnesses did.
  3. Sandy Larsen
    David, show me where I can observe the original Zapruder film, the one that Zapruder had on 11/23/63. One that hasn't been in the hands of the Secret Service, the FBI, or Life magazine. I want to compare that to the one(s) CTers say have been altered, to determine if they really have been. I eagerly await your response. If you (or anyone else) can't find that original film, that means that there WAS indeed plenty of time for alterations to be made to the film(s) we all see today. (Above I put in parentheses the letter "s" after the words "one" and "film" because I don't know if what we see today came from only one of the original copies, or two, or even three . All I know is that I've seen various versions at YouTube that aren't identical. Some are B&W, others color. Some are grainy, others clear. Some are jerking, others stable.)
  4. Sandy Larsen
    Horne (and I presume Mantik) assume Custer and Reed got all scared once shown the originals, and lied. That's pretty pathetic, IMO. It's amazing how so many of the medical witnesses (e.g. Carrico, Jenkins, Perry, Ebersole, Custer, Reed, Stringer, Riebe) are heroes when they tell people like Lifton, Mantik and Horne what they to hear, but are written off as liars and cowards when they tell them what they don't want to hear. Did Horne really call them cowards? I don't think they are cowards. But I do believe their earlier testimonies are more accurate than their later ones. Particularly given that they fairly well match the early testimonies of the huge majority of eyewitnesses.
  5. Sandy Larsen
    But the photographic evidence I talked about earlier isn't being "hidden" from anybody now. It was altered long ago, David. Some of it has even disappeared... even though it was supposedly safely stored in the Archive. As I asked before, do you REALLY think that the Z-Film plus the autopsy photos plus the autopsy X-rays were altered in order to "move" the large wound in JFK's head from the back to the right-front? Yes I do think that. It's not the big deal you make it out to be. Bright college students could do it. (Of course, there was no opportunity whatsoever for any plotters to have altered the Zapruder Film prior to that film being developed and copied for the Secret Service and FBI on November 22, 1963. Abe Zapruder himself stayed with his film every step of the way through the processing and copying stages at Kodak and the Jamieson film lab. Do CTers think Abraham Zapruder was part of a plot or a "cover-up" too?) In short --- the THREE layers of photographic evidence---one of which (the Zapruder Film) was a privately-owned non-Government home movie---prove for all time, IMO, that President John F. Kennedy did NOT have a large wound in the back portion of his cranium after he was shot in Dallas on 11/22/63. The Zapruder film was not privately owned. Life Magazine bought the rights for $1,000,000 in today's dollars. Very few people saw the Z film till Geraldo Rivera televised it in 1975 . And the ones who did see it lied about it. One has to be a real chump to believe all the lies the public has been fed re. the JFK assassination. Just like the public was lied to about Viet Nam, 9/11 and Iraq, Iran-Contra, U.S meddling in other countries, assassinations, and coups.
  6. Sandy Larsen
    DVP is clearly a Warren Commission ideologue. He believes whatever they want him to believe and disregards the rest.
  7. Sandy Larsen
    I can't believe that forty eyewitnesses, the majority of whom were medical professionals, can be wrong about this. Evidence can be altered, especially when it is hidden from everybody. I once had a photo taken of me for a passport. When I grimaced at the acne I saw on the photo, the photographer said no problem. I watched as he did some shading on the negative with pencils, which took a few seconds. A few minutes later he came out of his lab with a new set of photos, this time sans the acne. It was rather amazing.
  8. Sandy Larsen
    I received this email from Dr. Michael Chesser in response to Pat Speer's comments [above]. The relevant portion is posted here with his permission: Hi Greg, I've attached my presentation with notes. I'm very disappointed to read Pat's comments. I didn't say that David had not seen the original x-rays - I have no idea where he [speer] got that. My slide covering the left lateral skull x-ray describes what happened at NARA when I viewed that film. The NARA personnel overheard me dictating, and when I dictated my thoughts that the T shape was covered by emulsion, they immediately left the room and came back with Martha Murphy, who told me that a mistake had been made, and that I had been looking at the HSCA copies. She appeared upset - I thought at the time that she was upset with the personnel in the room, but I of course can't know what she was thinking. The T shape appeared odd, and it lit up and stood out from the background when I would shine my flashlight from one angle, but I couldn't actually see a wax mark on the surface of the emulsion. I still don't know how to interpret this. I can see how David concluded there is emulsion over the T shape, because the surface is smooth. I agree with David that there is an occipital skull defect, separate from the white patch, and I think it is probably where the Harper fragment was located. What convinced me more than anything else is the appearance of the scalp retraction photograph. [end quote] It seems clear to me that Pat merely misunderstood or misinterpreted what he heard at the presentation. An honest mistake, of course.
  9. Sandy Larsen
    I could refute or discredit every single one of the example testimonies given here by Bugliosi and quoted by DVP. But I know it would make no difference to DVP, and Bugliosi is dead. So I won't waste my time. But for anyone who sees DVP's post and is wondering about these people's testimonies, I suggest they look for the complete history of these people's testimonies on Dr. Aguliar's List of Head Wound Witnesses and decide for themselves what is fact and what is fiction. Just do a search on the page for the person's name. Almost every witness to Kennedy's head wound said that there was a large hole on the rear right side of the head. Dr. Aguliar lists over forty of them, all of them professionals and most of them medical professionals. Some of them changed their minds when they were told that the autopsy photos showed no hole on the back of Kennedy's head. Others held their ground and insisted that the photos had been doctored.
  10. Sandy Larsen
    Pat, Jenkins told David Lifton that there were skull fragments in the casket. He describes their putting them back together, and his description included the following: "I would say the parietal and occipital section on the right side of the head -- it was a large gaping area .... I'm laying my hand on the back area of my skull .... if I spread my fingers and put my hand back there, that probably would be the area that was missing .... When they put it back together, it would probably have been about the size of your fist -- which was an actual hole missing." If there was no hole in the back of the scalp, how did the fragments of bone escape? Furthermore, later in the interview Jenkins commented on the back-of-head autopsy photographs: "When I told Jenkins that autopsy photographs showed that the back of the head was essentially intact, except for a small bullet entry wound at the top, he was incredulous. 'That's not possible, That is totally--you know, there's no possible way. Okay? It's not possible.' " (Best Evidence, 1980, page 616, 617) Apparently either Jenkins' story has changed, or you have misremembered what he told you. Jerrol Custer told David Lifton that the wound in the skull was posterior in the skull and said that ".... he exposed, and returned to the morgue, X- rays showing that the rear of the President's head was blown off." (Best Evidence , p. 620) FWIW, in May 29, 1992 and November 18, 1993 press conferences Custer repeated his consistent claim that the current X-rays are forgeries. (http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm)
  11. Sandy Larsen
    Ah, okay. I thought that's what you meant, but I wanted to be sure. I edited that post where I said I hadn't studied the whole rifle-purchase thing. What I meant to say was that I hadn't studied it carefully. I actually am aware of the issues you mention. I just like to study things like these in depth before I accept them as fact. It's not a terribly difficult thing to do If the source material is referenced.
  12. Sandy Larsen
    One reason is that if Oswald was on the first floor or outside, it is simple not possible for him to have run from the sixth floor down that far in the necessary time frame. Okay..... But there is just a one-floor difference between first and second floor. If a cover story was to be fabribicated, it seems that the "third or fourth" floor story would have been a better one.
  13. Sandy Larsen
    Jim, What do you mean when you say "you will see why this does not at all follow logically from that."? What are "this" and "that?" And in "the rest makes it very unlikely." The rest makes what unlikely?
  14. Sandy Larsen
    David, Personally I view the lack of a bank endorsement as just a suspicious thing. How suspicious depends on how unusual it was for a bank not to stamp a PMO. I hope to learn more about that from Armstrong. It will be even more suspicious (MUCH more) if it turns out that the PMO processing facility also routinely stamped PMOs on the back. But I suspect they didn't do so, given that they stamped the front side with a file locator number. In the end it's the totality of evidence that makes me decide whether or not something was forged. EDIT: I should mention that I haven't studied in-depth any of the other issues surrounding the rifle purchase. So it will be some time before I have a feel for the "totality of the evidence" regarding it. EDIT 2: Added the phrase "in depth" to the above edit. Because I *am* aware of the other issues.
  15. Sandy Larsen
    Can somebody tell me what the motivation might have been to fabricate the alleged lunchroom encounter?
  16. Sandy Larsen
    But Baker didn't take take the passenger elevator, the stairs near the front door, or a freight elevator, did he? (At least not before taking the back stairs.) If not, then he wouldn't have known how confusing the building is.
  17. Sandy Larsen
    That's right folks. The purpose of the following rule in the Federal Reserve Banks' regulation: "All cash items [checks & PMOs] sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar endorsement. ... The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides." is to tell commercial banks that bank endorsements are not necessary. And not only that, but if commercial banks insist on endorsing the items, the FRBs want them to know that the endorsements don't need to be dated or show the ABA transit number. Yes, that is the purpose of this clause according to Craig Lamson. Because the word "should" was used instead of "shall." <roll eyes> Can you imagine ALL banks deciding NOT to endorse checks because of this silly interpretation? Now let's get real. Here's the definition of "should": should /SHood/ verb 1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. 2. used to indicate what is probable. 3. expressing the conditional mood. 4. used in a clause with “that” after a main clause describing feelings. 5. used in a clause with “that” expressing purpose. 6. (in the first person) expressing a polite request or acceptance. 7. (in the first person) expressing a conjecture or hope. 8. used to emphasize to a listener how striking an event is or was. The only one of these definitions that fits is "1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions." So according to the rule, banks: 1) are obliged; 2) have the duty; and/or 3) are correct to stamp checks and postal money orders with their endorsement. And banks: 1) are obliged; 2) have the duty; and/or 3) are correct to include on their endorsement stamp the date and their ABA transit number.
  18. Sandy Larsen
    Robert, I haven't studied in detail the events you guys are discussing here in this thread. Can you tell what the motivation might have been for concocting the lunchroom encounter between Oswald and Baker?
  19. Sandy Larsen
    Sandy.... Thanks SO MUCH for your serious research and contribution to this thread!! Your private message has been forwarded to JA. Your work is MOST APPRECIATED!!!! --Jim HarveyandLee.net Thanks Jim.
  20. Sandy Larsen
    If I am reading this right, not only is Mrs. Sanders' testimony of the lunchroom incident hearsay, it is hearsay of hearsay. Right? Well, I for one would be interested in hearing about the other two witnesses. I've always found it odd that Officer Baker pulled his gun on Oswald for no apparent reason. Also, some time ago I read that Baker made a comment to Truly shortly afterward that Oswald was a dangerous man. What could have triggered that? (I've seen that statement mentioned just that one time, so maybe it was just some commenter's imagination running wild.)
  21. Sandy Larsen
  22. Sandy Larsen
    Brilliant! That makes things easier for me. Thanks Tim Brennan and DVP!
  23. Sandy Larsen
  24. Sandy Larsen
    David I thoroughly enjoyed your synopsis of this thread. It truly has been a roller coaster ride. Mind if I borrow a couple of those Excedrin?
  25. Sandy Larsen
    You're wrong, Sandy. Pictured below are two illustrations dug up by Tom Scully that prove such a "fine sorting" system was in place as early as April 1960. HERE is the 1960 source document which contains the images below. Click to enlarge: No David, I'm right. Both of those diagrams above represent processing facilities at Federal Reserve Banks, NOT commercial banks. Everywhere it says "fine sorted" it is referring to the fine sorting done by FRBs. Fine sorting isn't a fancy type of sorting method. It is just a very thorough and precise type of sorting that is required to properly route checks to their paying banks. Prior to 1974/1979, FRBs did the fine sorting. The reason they introduced the fine-sorting program was to allow banks to do the sorting themselves so they could save money. Because FRBs charged money for the service. And some banks figured they could do it at a lower cost. Fine sorting is analogous to pre-sorting outgoing mail, which some businesses do to lower their postage costs. That 1960 article doesn't even mention the fine-sort program.
×
×
  • Create New...