Sandy Larsen

LOL, oh really? The dispatcher never says 1:10? Lookie here: Disp 10-4 603 and 602, 1:10 p .m . 6C2 What's that address on Jefferson? Disp 501 East 10th . 85 85 out . 19 19 . Disp 19 . 19, Give me the correct address on the shooting . Dizp 501 East 10th . 105 105 . 602 602 Code 6 Unknown Was 519 E . Jefferson correct? Disp We have 2 locations, 501 E . Jefferson and 501 E . 10th. 19, are you enroute? Uknown This is an officer 19 to-4 . 19 19 is enroute . Disp 10-4, 19. 605 605 Code 5 . Disp 10-4, 605, 1:10. Disp 85 . 602 602 . Disp 85 . . . . 85, 85 . Disp The subject's running west on Jefferson from the location. 85 10-4 . Disp No physical description . Citizen [Bowley] hello, hello, hello . . . . 602 602 . . . Citizen [Bowley] . . . . from out here on 10th Street, 300 block . This police officer's just shot . I think he's dead . Disp 10-4, we have the information . The Citizen using the radio, remain off the radio now . From p. 408 and 409 of CE-705: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_705.pdf The dispatcher says it's 1:10 PM twice, just before Bowley gets on the radio! This is precisely the time that Bowley says he made the radio call! As I said, the Dictabelt and transcript were altered to show a later time -- about 9 minutes later -- to give Oswald more time to get there to supposedly shoot Tippit. But the coverup artists made a mistake and didn't change this 1:10 PM time. The error was caught later and attempts made to correct it, but it was too late to cover all their tracks!

The person I got that story from was a little loose in his characterization of the Higgins interview. The "reporters" he spoke of was actually researcher Barry Ernest. The quote is from an unplanned interview he had with Higgins, which he recorded in his book. Higgins had remembered the time of the shooting after all those years because she heard the 1:16 PM time reported on the news in 1963 and she realized that the real time was ten minutes prior. She told Ernest, "I'd bet my life" on that time. Oh my gosh, how old are you, Bill? Television was funny back then, with an awful lot of live broadcasts featuring absolute amateurs. I remember one local TV show called "Dialing for Dollars" where the host would randomly pick a phone number, call it, wait for six rings to pass, and then count to ten to give the household more time to answer the phone. If a person did answer, the host would ask a question. The person would win some amount of money if they got the answer right. It was all very corny. I just looked it up in Wikipedia and was surprised to find an article on it. Our local Dialing for Dollars set looked a lot like the one on the left here: It's not at all surprising that a live host back then would give out the time of day.

What?? Markham told the Warren Commission FIFTEEN times that Oswald wasn't the man who she saw shoot Tippit! Mr. Ball: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men? Mrs. Markham: Yes, sir. Mr. Ball: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup? Mrs. Markham: No, sir. Mr. Ball: You did not? Did you see anybody - I have asked you this question before - did you recognize anybody from their face? Mrs. Markham: From their face, no. Mr. Ball: Did you identify anybody in these four people? Mrs. Markham: I didn't know nobody. Mr. Ball: I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before? Mrs. Markham: No, I had never seen none of them, none of these men. Mr. Ball: No one of the four? Mrs. Markham: No one of them. Mr. Ball: No one of all four? Mrs. Markham: No, sir. Mr. Ball: Was there a number two man in there? Mrs. Markham: Number two is the one I picked.<:f> Mr. Ball: Well, I though you just told me that you hadn't- Mrs. Markham: I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing. Mr. Ball: No, I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there- Mrs. Markham: Number two. Mr. Ball: What did you say when you saw number two? Mrs. Markham: Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said number two. When I said number two, I just got weak. Mr. Ball: What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two? Mrs. Markham: Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman. Mr. Ball: You recognized him from his appearance? Mrs. Markham: I asked- I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cool chills just run over me. o o o Mr. BALL. I have two Commission Exhibits, 535 and 533. I will show them to you, Mrs. Markham, and I will ask you if you have ever seen the man who is pictured there, whose picture is shown on these two exhibits. Mrs. MARKHAM. No. Mr. BALL. Never have seen him before. Do you think he might have been one of the men you talked to before? Mrs. MARKHAM. No, no. Mr. BALL. They are pictures of the same man. Mrs. MARKHAM. No. Mr. DULLES. We are inquiring whether you had ever seen him after the assassination. Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I know. No, not this man. This man I have never seen. I have never seen this man in my life. Mr. BALL. I have no further questions. Mr. DULLES. Do you know who he is? Mrs. MARKHAM. No, I don’t. It is just a picture of a man. I don’t know him. Mr. DULLES. Mr. Ball, do you have any further questions? Mr. BALL. No further questions

Yep... 1:06 PM: Helen Markham had just arrived at the northwest corner of 10th & Patton, en route to catch the city bus one block south at Jefferson & Patton (at 1:15 PM). She told the Warren Commission it was "6 or 7 minutes after 1 [1:06 or 1:07 PM]" Mrs. Margie Higgins, who lived at 417 East 10th St. was watching television and later told reporters, "Well, I was watching the news on television and for some reason the announcer turned and looked at the clock and said the time was six minutes after one (1:06 PM). At that point I heard the shots." Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig was searching the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, when a rifle was discovered. Craig wrote, “… At that exact moment an unknown Dallas police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I instinctively looked at my watch. The time was 1:06 PM." It has been shown in numerous ways that the original DPD Dictabelts were recreated for the WC with false times that are ~9 minutes later than reality. One example of this is the fact that official documents indicate Tippit dying at the hospital before being picked up by an ambulance. Another example is the evidence that the shooting occurred at 1:06 PM, not several minutes later as noted by the WC. Here is yet another example. T.F. Bowley was driving west on 10th Street and arrived a few minutes after the shooting. He looked at his watch--the time was 1:10 PM. An original DPD police transcript, found in the National Archives, lists the time of Bowley's call to the police as 1:10 PM. The original DPD transcript (CE 705) shows the report of Tippit's murder by Bowley at 1:10 PM. The FBI transcript, (CE 1974) prepared in August, 1964, lists the reporting time of Tippit's murder by Bowley at 1:19 PM--nine minutes later.

More WC apologist magic: Doctors unsuccessfully tried to resuscitate J.D. Tippit at the hospital, and finally pronounced him dead at 1:15 PM. Three minutes later, an ambulance was dispatched to go to the crime scene and pick up a dead Tippit... who was then taken to the hospital. Had the WC accepted the time of shooting that all the evidence indicated -- 1:06 PM -- the above inconsistency among others would not have occurred. But the problem with that is that Oswald could not have arrived in time to shoot Tippit st 1:06 PM.

Warren Commission apologists believe in magic. And not with just the Magic Bullet: The Zapruder film proves that a huge chunk of scalp, skull, and brain matter was blown off the top of Kennedy's head. It magically put itself back together by the time it reached Parkland Hospital. Twenty doctors and nurses saw no problem with the top of Kennedy's head... it was all there, neatly put back into place.

Well it was interesting while it lasted.

What did Pat expect the doctors to say when forged photos were produced that contradicted what they'd seen? Okay, so Pat's line of reasoning is this: Fetzer believes a crazy theory. Therefore, everything Fetzer believes is crazy. I'm sure there's a Latin phrase for this logical fallacy. But that won't stop Pat from using it. He has no shame. Here Pat is using fake conspiracies to ridicule a real one. Hmm, Is Pat really a closeted WC apologist? Or is he just mischaracterizing and cherry picking again. The bottom line is, Pat was fooled by the cover up and now has to resort to mischaracterization, cherry picking, and logical fallacies to defend himself.

I'm certainly not going to comment on your characterization of what Horne supposedly believes. Every time I've read one of Horne's theories, in which he includes the evidence, I've been impressed by what I read and I've agreed with it. The man is smart, and he's fair. So if what you said is indeed what Horne believes, I'd say that it likely makes a lot of sense and very well may represent the facts. As for how the clandestine surgery was performed without many of the technicians witnessing it, that is easy to understand. Indeed, even Lifton figured it out decades before the ARRB. Humes simply asked non-essential technicians to leave the room during the pre-autopsy surgery. In his WC testimony, Finck spoke of having "enough curvature and enough portion of a crater" on a skull bone to be able to determine whether it was a wound of entrance or exit. The only reason for requiring enough curvature to determine entrance or exit is if the bone is a fragment. Because from curvature you can tell which side of the fragment is inside, and which side is outside. So yes, Finck did indeed confirm the existence of a fragment down low near the EOP. He did so indirectly. (He wasn't explicit about it because the orders to the autopsists were to cover up gunshots from the front.) This line of reasoning was corroborated at the time of the HSCA when Boswell came right out and said the very same thing... this time directly. Finally, both of these doctors are corroborated by the Sibert & O'Neill FBI Report on the autopsy, which states that a 6.5 x 10 cm fragment was brought in late and was kept by Dr. Humes, but made available for later inspection. We know that this fragment came from the EOP because that is where the large rubber dam was put in place by the morticians to prevent embalming fluid leakage. Pat doesn't have a leg to stand on with the issue. But he will never admit he is wrong. He lives in the world of an ideologue, unwilling to accept information foreign to his understanding.

Of course they did! Are you incapable of reading? Here is just one sample that proves I'm right (copied from the OP): Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA: "Regarding the head wound, Dr. Boswell said the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head" (Source: HSCA rec # 180-10093-10430. Agency file # 002071, p. 6.) What part of "a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head" don't you understand? A fragment was brought in that fit low on the back of the head. And the fragment completed the half of the entry wound that had been missing. You're in denial Pat. I think that everybody (beside you) knew I was talking about large exit wounds when I said that such a wound would have been noticed by the Parkland doctors and nurses. Naturally small entrance wounds could have gone unnoticed. Indeed, I myself believe small entrance wounds went unnoticed at Parkland. Horne's "gibberish" -- as you put it -- is earth-shattering brilliant compared to the nonsense you proclaim.

Can you say, "spaghetti code?" Of course, Basic back in those days created spaghetti code as well, with its line numbering syntax. But Quick Basic in the 1980s was fully structured, so that resolved the spaghetti problem and made writing code fun. Few people know this, but before Visual Basic (for writing Windows programs) became wildly popular in the 1990s, Microsoft actually sold Visual Basic for DOS! It was basically Quick Basic, but had a visual development environment, with which you could write non-windows (i.e. text only) programs that looked and behaved just like Windows programs! Very cool. Here's the IDE (integrated development environment) for VB-DOS: And here is a calculator program running in the IDE: (Actually, it is in Form Editing mode here, not actually running.) That dark-gray box on the 7 button is the mouse pointer. (Sorry, that's the best you can get with a text-only DOS screen.) But if you run the VB-DOS program in Windows, you get a pretty mouse pointer and it feels just like you're using a Windows program. (BTW, you CAN compile the program and run it stand-alone, without the IDE.)

@Bill Simpich Tommy continued: PS Have you had an opportunity, yet, to check out my 25 free-to-read articles at Substack under my banner "How the KGB Zombified the CIA and the FBI"? I've only had it for about three weeks and I already have 24 followers!

@Bill Simpich Bill, Researcher Thomas "Tommy" Graves wrote the following and sent it by e-mail to me. You might be interested in it. The problem is, "Byetkov"/Obyedkov wasn't a U.S.-loyal double agent -- he was, as Angleton says in his 6 February 1976 Church Committee testimony (where he refers to "Byetkov"/Obyedkov as "the other hangnail"), a Kremlin-loyal triple agent (i.e., the CIA mistakenly thought it had successfully recruited him). I don't know if Angleton realized that *in 1963,* but he talks about it in his 1976 Church Committee testimony, and in retrospect it's very important for the simple reason that one shouldn't trust what a Kremlin-loyal triple agent tells one. Da? Another problem is that Bill conflates "Byetkov"/Obyedkov with Boris Orekhov (SHAMROCK), another Kremlin-loyal triple agent, who duped J. Edgar Hoover in 1966 (iirc) into believing that the KGB had undertaken a six-month investigation (it hadn't) right after the assassination (not ostensibly "in 1967," as Bill seems to believe) and guess what? -- allegedly determined that the evil, evil Military Industrial Complex (or some-such thing) had killed JFK!!! I seem to remember having found a document about SHAMROCK in this regard a few years ago at the Mary Ferrell Foundation website. Yet another mistake that Bill keeps making is that alleged JFKA "cover up artist" wasn't Angleton, but, according to John Newman and British researcher Malcolm Blunt, KGB "mole" Bruce Solie in the mole-hunting Office of Security, who not only sent (or duped his confidant, protégé, and mole-hunting subordinate, Angleton, into sending) Oswald to Moscow in 1959 as an ostensible "dangle" in a *planned-to-fail* hunt for "Popov's Mole" (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA, but hid OS documents on Oswald from the Church Committee and the Warren Commission and seems to have managed to lose Volume V of the OS files on Oswald in the late 1970s.

You mean, he's running for Congress.

Nope. Had there been a gaping hole in the side or top of the head, certainly some of the Parkland doctors and nurses would have noticed it. None did. Nearly all of them saw a gaping hole on the back of the head. Horne is right. Pat and Eddy are wrong. There were extremely few such witnesses, all of whom were the worst witnesses, caught by surprise and getting only a quick glance. They likely didn't notice that, by the time of the head shot, Kennedy had turned his head to the right, and the side of the head they were viewing at that point in time was the BACK of his head. So they saw a blowout on the back of his head, but thought it was the right side of the head. All the witnesses who could view the head for a lengthy period of time saw the wound where it really was... on the back of the head. Impossible. The trajectory would necessitate a gunman floating above the trunk of the limo. Impossible. A Parkland doctor or nurse would have notice such a blowout wound on the top of the head, but none did. We have a photograph of the body alteration:

It's fine that you have your own theory, Eddy. However, the topic of this thread is the fact that the autopsy docs revealed a fragment low in the back of the head adjacent to the tiny EOP wound. If you wish to discuss your dual-blowout wound theory, please do so on another thread.

Well, duh! The autopsists covered up the gaping wound in the back of the head for the Warren Commission. Dr. Finck's revelation of the fragment "curvature" in his WC testimony was an accident.

The premise of your argument suffers from two problems. First, you assume that the autposists were being honest when they said the small EOP wound was one of entrance. As I've argued, the evidence shows that it was actually a wound of exit. Furthermore, the autopsists had a motive to lie about that, because that would have indicated a shooter from the front. Second, you assume that the skull x-ray is legitimate. I think I'll stick with Mantik's interpretation of the small EOP wound, and the x-ray authenticity... or rather, lack thereof.

Eddie, I think you place far too much importance on what one witness, Newman, said. The vast majority of the doctors and nurses said the wound was on the back of the head, not the top.

The whole point of identifying the curvature in a skull bone is to know which side is on the inside of the skull and which side is on the outside. And the only reason that is important is so you know which side the observed beveling is on. If the beveling is on the inside, this is indicative of an entrance wound, and if it's on the outside, this is indicative of an exit wound. It's as simple as that. That is the reason Finck noted he was able to observe the curvature. (See his statements in the OP.) Because he needed to know which side the crater/beveling was on... inside or outside of skull. Now, if Finck was talking about the bullet hole being 100% (not partial, not half) on INTACT skull (i.e. not a fragment), why would he even be noting that he could determine the curvature? In that case, there would be no need to look for curvature to know which side the beveling was observed on. Clearly Finck was referring to a fragment. It's only with a fragment that it is important to determine the curvature in order to know which side is in and which side is out. If you read both of Finck's statement in the OP, you will see that he refers indirectly to a fragment (due to "curvature"), and to beveling/cratering that is only partially on the intact skull. (BTW, the latter ALSO implies a fragment... because if the beveling/cratering is only partially on the intact skull, where else would the remainder of it be? On a fragment, of course.) Pat thinks that Finck is referring to some other off-the-wall, crazy thing. Why? Because what Finck says contradicts what Pat believes. But all one needs to do to see that my explanation is correct is to read what Boswell said at the time of the HSCA. BOSWELL CORROBORATES WHAT FINCK SAID! Not Pat's interpretation of what Finck said, but MY interpretation of what he said. (See Boswell's statements in the OP.) It isn't at all surprising that Boswell sides with my interpretation because I have an open mind and no axe to grind. I adjust my understanding with every new piece of information that I come across. In contrast, Pat has an ideology that he won't budge from. He is determined to make every bit of evidence match his ideology regardless of how ridiculous his arguments become. Such is the danger of being an ideologue. I told Pat before that the reported 15 x 6 mm hole was only in the scalp. Not the bone. But here he is again trying to make the evidence agree with his belief. "Corresponding" doesn't mean that the bone hole size was precisely the same as the scalp hole size, 6 x 15 mm. It means only the the bullet passed through both the 6 x 15 mm scalp hole and the CORRESPONDING bullet hole through the bone.

P.S. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I could learn some good manners from Ben Cole. I could, but I probably won't.

No, Dr. Finck revealed it too, just not as explicitly. First in 1964 for the Warren Commission, and then in a letter in 1965. Finck, WC: "In the case we are discussing today, it was possible to have enough curvature and enough portion of the crater to identify positively the wound of entrance at the site of the bone." (Source) Note: We know that Finck is talking about a fragment here. Because with a fragment, it needs to be big enough to see the curvature. The curvature tells the pathologist which side of the fragment is interior and which side exterior. Knowing that, the side the crater is on indicates the side the bullet exited. Note also that Finck talks about the portion of the crater on the fragment. The remainder of the crater is on the intact skull edge where the fragment fits. Finck Letter to Gen. Blumberg, 1965: "I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosecutors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of entrance." (Source) Note: Again we see portion of a crater. The remainder of the crater is on the occipital fragment that fit there. All three autopsy doctors said that just a portion of the hole/crater was on the intact skull. Humes allows the reader of the autopsy report to assume that the fragment with the other portion of the hole/crater was in place when the skull was reassembled. But it wasn't. Instead of the fragment being in place, a rubber dam was so that embalming fluid wouldn't leak out.

I stand corrected. You get your news from from both left-wing and right-wing fake news sites, and very little from mainstream news. (Not that everything is fake on fake news sites. But too much is.) alt-l = left-wing fake news (Source) alt-r = right-wing fake news (Source) Matt Taibbi is a Democrat hating, MSM hating, political commentator. I wouldn't call that series a CJR one so much as a Jeff Gerth one. Here is David Corn's answer to it: Columbia Journalism Review’s Big Fail: It Published 24,000 Words on Russiagate and Missed the Point The magazine’s attempted takedown of the media’s coverage bolsters Trump’s phony narrative. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/02/columbia-journalism-review-jeff-gerth-trump-russia-the-media/ I criticized your selection of news sources and you criticized my aggressive debating style. I take no offense... maybe you shouldn't either.

It's an assumption based on years of observing everything you say about Russiagate and the January 6 shenanigans, the latter of which was obviously instigated by Trump himself and his associates. That is to say, obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear. For you to miss all that, surely you must have gotten your information from Trump-friendly fake news sites. The sites that don't report anything negative about Trump.

And so, instead, you rely on Trump-friendly fake news sites for your information.