Sandy Larsen

Newman completely ignores the fact that the guy in the Cuban Consulate was a short, blond, Oswald impersonator. He, like the WC, is fooled by the CIA's fabricated MC story. Disappointing.

So, in summary, the FBI report mentions a boy that the woman caller identified as the Oswald shot by Ruby, and two men who she thought were his father and his uncle. She also mentions the following men: Emile Kardos. A brother-in-law. Weinstock, the editor of Woman's World. From this information, researchers have determined the following likely to be the case: Emil Gardos was the foster father of the boy (Oswald). Emil Gardos was married to Grace A. Blair, whose brother was Fred Bassett Blair. Fred Bassett Blair was the foster uncle of the boy (Oswald). Louis Weinstock was editor of “Worker’s World.” All three of these men were well-know communists and subversives active in America in the 1940s. It should be noted that the foster father, Emil Gardos, was active in NYC, whereas the foster uncle, Fred Blair, was active in Wisconsin. The woman caller said that the two had lived together at a specific address in NYC. However, we have no other evidence of the two spending time together.

If anybody wants to google that, make sure that you do NOT use an apostrophe in "Workers World."

We have a well-demarcated black patch on the back of Kennedy's head that is too demarcated and too dark to be natural. And it just happens to be located where a bloody blowout wound should be, as seen by over 40 witnesses. In addition, we have a huge blob of what is apparently supposed to be brain tissue exploding out the right-top-anterior part of the head, a place where not a single Parkland doctor or nurse -- numbering nearly 20 -- saw any such thing. These are mere anomalies to Jeremy only because he has an irrational preconceived notion that, while the coverup artists would alter just about anything to make it look like Oswald did it, for some reason known only to him, they wouldn't touch those photographs or films. Because of this irrational belief, Jeremy has to resort to the same old "nothing here to see" arguments that WC apologists use. And thereby he has become one of the CT darlings of the LNers. I'm pretty sure Roger answered that. The answer is this: At first, when the coverup artists did the quick alterations, they hoped that that would be sufficient in convincing the public that the blowout wound was in the front and not the back of the head. They were disappointed that they couldn't remove the "back and to the left" movement. This presented them two options... either suppress the film or destroy it. Given that "accidental" destruction of the film would look exceedingly suspicious -- rather like Ruby killing Oswald looked suspicious -- they decided to suppress the film. They figured, if the film did get out some time in the future, the back-and-to-the-left motion could be explained away. Rather like Jeremy is trying to explain away the film alteration evidence. Answered above.

LOL! Jeremy doubling down on this only proves my point, that his signature logic is "I wouldn't do that, therefore they wouldn't do that."

Except that you'd be ignoring all the evidence we have that the film has been altered.

... in the minds of people like you. Which doesn't matter to most of us. Stone's critics would have pounced on something else had there been no Prouty. Regardless, JFK the film was nominated for eight Academy Awards and won two, and was the 6th highest grossing film internationally for 1991. Roger Ebert said it was the year's best film, and one of the top ten films of the decade. And it rates 84% on Rotten Tomatoes. But best of all, it led to the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act.

I believe that three head shots is what Ron said: One in the hairline over the right eye. One in the right temple slightly in front of the top of the ear. One in the lower edge of the back-of-head blow out. In other words, near the EOP.

Jim, So, in summary, what we know so far is that the FBI report mentions a boy the woman caller identified as the Oswald shot by Ruby, and two men who she thought were his father and his uncle. She also mentioned the following men: Emile Kardos. A brother-in-law. Weinstock, the editor of Woman's World. You have determined that Emile Kardos is most likely really Emil Gardos, a well-know communist and subversive active in America in the 1940s. And that he is a foster father of Oswald. Further, you've determined that Grace Gardos was Emil Gardos's wife, foster mother of Oswald. What I haven't seen so far are how the uncle, brother-in-law, and Weinstock figure into this. And how you came up with the name Fred Blair.

This is just more of Jeremy's signature "I wouldn't do that, therefore they wouldn't do that" logic. While it okay to use that kind of logic, it should be limited because it carry's very little weight. (An exception being when the consequences of not doing something would be disastrous.) It is far better to rely on all the evidence we have at hand.

Ann & Nancy Wilson in an awesome tribute to Led Zeppelin. MUST SEE.

What about Annie Lennox? Here with David Bowie & Queen.

There are two Zapruder anomalies that persist, and I predict they will never be explained benignly. First, the overly black patch on the back of Kennedy's head. Second, that the massive wound apparent on the top-right side of Kennedy's head in the film was observed by NO witness prior to the official autopsy. Not a single medical professional at Parkland saw it. Isn't it convenient how those two things contradict what the Parkland professionals saw, but aligns with the Oswald-did-it fabricated story given by the government coverup. Jeremy likes to say that the coverup artists would have just destroyed or kept the film hidden, rather than alter it, if it had something to hide. Well, first off, it is irrelevant what Jeremy thinks they would do. But even if we accept Jeremy's argument... well, guess what... that is precisely what Life did! The only reason the public at large ever saw the film is because of the bootlegged copy shown by Geraldo on national TV. The reason the film was altered in the two ways I mentions is because it was easy to do... they could get it done in their short time frame. They ultimately decided it wasn't good enough. and so they suppressed it. Of course, what I describe here is a hypothesis. But it's the only reasonable one I've seen to explain everything we know. In contrast, Jeremy just kicks the whole thing under the rug and says, "what, me worry?" BTW, I also think that some frames were removed to speed up a short, quick slow-down of the limo just before Z313.

The argument. I didn't argue with you. I stated some facts.

What did I lose?

@Pat Speer

According to Danny Sheehan. Wow, Lansdale's wife. Is Sheehan trustworthy?

That's nonsense. We believe photos were altered because they disagree with what most witnesses saw. And we believe that the WC and HSCA interpretations of the autopsy photos, x-rays, and Z-film contradict reality.

No, of course not. I was just using an old poker idiom that seemed to fit.

It's only a mark against alteration if your goal is to prove conspiracy. A superior goal is to find the truth. It's superior because the more truths you discover, the easier it becomes to discover more. You get a snowball effect. If your goal is to prove conspiracy, you might as well log out and go home. Conspiracy was proven long ago. Nearly every witness said they saw a large hole on the back of Kennedy's head. I've been saying 40 of 50 witnesses said that. But my numbers are conservative estimates. I think it's probably fewer than 5 who said there was no wound on the back of the head. (I'll find out when I spend more effort formalizing my proof.) It is statistically impossible for so many witnesses to all be wrong. Therefore, there was a gaping wound on the back of the head. No question about it. This is scientific proof the the back-of-head photos are fraudulent. (Math and statistics are branches of science.) And therefore, it is proof that the cover-up artist did resort to altering photos! But what about the Z film? The Z film doesn't show the rear blowout wound. Well, okay, maybe the wound somehow closed up or some other way became dark while Zapruder was filming. That's conceivable. Barely. However, the Z film show a blob of something -- brains, I guess -- popping out the top right of Kennedy's head. And it's not just a little bit... it's huge. Not a single one of the ~20 Parkland doctors or nurses saw that huge "wound" when he was treated there. Though they all saw the back-of-head wound. This is proof the the Z film was altered to add that blob. Which, incidentally, supports the lone gunman theory that the coverup artists were intent on selling. Oh, and BTW, the black patch on the back of the head is pretty definitive proof on its own. You don't believe so because you have an anti-alteration bias. And maybe you aren't a technically inclined person. But really, to people like me (I'm an engineer) that patch is not natural. Why worry about what the other media show? Since we proved that Z313 and the few frames beyond that have been altered, it follows that the other films will naturally corroborate that... or at least not contradict it. I've NEVER worried about that. Likewise, I've never worried about someone proving me wrong about the gaping wound being on the back of the head. Or the BOH autopsy photos being fraudulent. Why worry about things that have been proven to be true? Facts can't be discredited. At least not honestly.

Greg, Your further questioning got me to re-read what I wrote, and now I see that there was a misunderstanding on my part. As it turns out, Aguilar never mentions the situation #1 that I described in my post, where there is a flap hanging down from about the cowlick area. He describes only situation #2, which is Dr. Salyer's theory. My apologies for that. And so Dr. Aguilar agrees with Dr. Salyer's theory. He believes that the flap of scalp is attached at the hairline of the neck, and that gravity pulls it down (when Kennedy is lying face up) thus exposing the skull wound. Since I got this from an very recently written article by Dr. Aguilar, I assume it is what he believes today. Now, here you are saying that what you meant is "a limited flap coverup of only a small part of the total back of the head." To me, that sounds like either #1 or #2 as I described in my first post, except that it isn't as wide as #2. Either way, it cannot be seen in the photo. The BOH autopsy photo shows that there is no "limited flap" on the back. I attribute it to Dr. Aguilar because he said it was something he and other researcher had long believed. Here is the pertinent excerpt: Near the end of the film Dr. Salyer made a suggestion that some of us skeptics have long believed plausibly explains why the Parkland doctors and autopsy witnesses said JFK’s wound was right-rearward. A flap of JFK’s scalp had fallen backward, Salyer said, and it “bunched up” at the base of Kennedy’s occiput. Since the autopsy report documented that there were large scalp tears, and since JFK was lying face-up on the Parkland gurney, as well as on the autopsy table, it only makes sense that gravity would have drawn a torn flap downward to reveal what was present, a rearward skull defect described by both Parkland and Bethesda witnesses. [Emphases mine.] Aguilar says, "some of us skeptics have long believed." He doesn't say, "some skeptics have long believed." To me that means he is among the skeptics who believe it. When Dr. Aguilar says, "Not a blowout exit wound" I take that as meaning the scalp opening is not a blowout wound. Just the skull hole is a blowout wound. It's extremely hard to believe that, after decades of studying and trying to convince top-of-the-head wound advocates that the wound was actually on the back, Aguilar would do a 180. Okay, I just re-read Dr. Aguilar's review of JFK: What the Doctors Saw, published last month on Kennedy's & King. And he is, as usual, defending the back-of-head wound proponents throughout. He definitely has not done a 180. Read it and weep, Greg.

Jeff, Is it true that someone's (Krulak's?) wife also identified Lansdale in the tramp photo? If so, when did that take place?

I wish that those who post clues to Z-film alteration would have done so (and will do so) in a dedicated thread. So that this thread would have stayed on topic. ------------------------------------------- There are lots of problems with the anti-alteration viewpoint. All the anti-alterationists ever do is cherry-pick, misrepresent, witness bash, and sweep things under the rug (ignore evidence). And for what? Because they think that in a major coverup the coverup artists wouldn't go so low as to alter photographs? That's nonsense talk if you ask me.

Bundy admired Kennedy decades afterward for his (Kennedy's) going around him? That doesn't seem right.

Stu, I don't understand your reluctance to accept the possibility that the round in Kennedy's back was exotic. How can you possibly have any idea whatsoever how deep an exotic round would penetrate? Is this documented somewhere? And why do you think the shooter has to be far away to reduce velocity? Cannot a gun be built that will shoot low-velocity exotic bullets/darts? What about the possibility that the shooter had to be somewhat far away in order not to be seen, and whose exotic weapon could shoot that far but with less precision. So what if the precision isn't great at that distance? You aim at the head knowing that the bullet/dart will hit a very large target... that being a man's back. (Though, granted, the height of the target would be less than ideal due to the back of his seat blocking the lower part of the back.)