Sandy Larsen

I agree 100%. A great interviewer... no softball with him. Alex Wagner is sooooo good looking! But her show isn't one of my favorites. Rachel Maddow is good for people who don't read enough news to understand the nuances. She studies and educates herself on a topic at hand, and then summaries it for her viewers. I wish she were still on every day. I'm glad they dumped Chris Matthews too, but for different reasons. First, for knowing that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, but pretending dumb instead of informing his audience. (I guess so he'd have the resulting war to report on.) And second, for the condescending/mocking way he treated David Talbot when he interviewed him about his book Brothers. And you're right... he's a blowhard.

I love to watch Joe go on one of his anti-Trump tirades. Very entertaining!

William, When I said that I haven't seen anybody say that "Lansdale did it," I was disagreeing with Ben Cole. What I meant was that I haven't seen anybody say that Lansdale shot Kennedy. As a matter of fact, I've long thought that the guy walking along the fence near the three tramps is Lansdale. I'm the one who first pointed out that the guy is wearing fake glasses as a disguise. In other words, his glasses have just plain glass in them, not prescription lenses. Prescription glasses bend light and, because of that will leave a shadow. And you can actually see that sunlight passing through his glasses and hit a solid part of the fence, and is no different than the surrounding sunlight that doesn't go through the lens. No shadow... no prescription lenses. Just plain glass. Why would anybody where glasses with just plain glass in them if it's not for disguise?

I have indisputably proven that the blowout wound on Kennedy's head was indeed on the back of his head. Which means that the back-of-head autopsy photos are fraudulent, the autopsy x-rays were altered, and the Zapruder film was altered to hide that wound. All of these make Pat's post moot. My proof is basically this: There are so many more witnesses who said they saw the wound on the back of the head, compared to the number who didn't see it there, that it is statistically impossible for so many witnesses to have gotten it wrong. The proof is here:

Nevertheless, it is bizarre that the police arrested three common hobos. Even more bizarre is they kept them locked up for four days. Even though they had captured their prime suspect and then let him get killed.

I haven't seen anybody say that Lansdale "did it."

According to Vince Salandria, it is recorded in both Theodore White's Making of the President and Pierre Salinger's With Kennedy. Salinger tried to get the tape from NARA for Salandria, but it had magically disappeared! This was back in 1968. The content of the messages was also confirmed by Robert Manning, Kennedy's Asst. Sec of State for Public Affairs, in 1993. He had been on Air Force One.

But Jim, there's pretty good corroborated evidence that Bundy was telling those on Air Force One that it wasn't a conspiracy and that the killer had been captured. Are you saying that LBJ and Hoover communicated before that, while LBJ was flying back to Washington?

Roger, Suppose it was Bundy's idea to kill Kennedy, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't ask Johnson what he thought of the idea. I mean, that's treason talk there, not to mention murder. Or suppose it was Johnson's idea. Similar problem Unless they were close buddies. There must have been a close-knit group of men who knew they could talk to each other without fear of being ratted on. I think that's the reason Cliff brings up Skull & Bones.

I like your thinking more, Cliff. It eliminates the need for two plots (the original AND the piggyback) and two perpetrators (? plotters under Harriman/Bundy AND the CIA). And if we consider what Roger wrote about NSAM 273 having been written for Johnson, the plot seems to have gone like this... Someone among the Skull & Bones crowd decides it's time to go for Kennedy. They pass it off to the CIA to plan it. Someone adds that they'd get more bang for the buck if they implicate the commies... this will please the generals. Harriman/Bundy inform Johnson that he needn't worry about his impending scandals, he just needs to play along. (They might have blackmailed him, to ensure he go along rather than having to get his approval.) It was assumed that Oswald would indeed be killed, and so Harriman/Bundy order a retaliatory military strike on Cuba. (I add this because, in James Hosty's book, he said that military aircraft were on their way to Cuba, but then called back.) It is learned that Oswald survived, and so the aircraft were called back. In addition, it is decided by Harriman/Bundy to scrap the communist angle. They contact Air Force One to inform them there was no conspiracy and that the killer had been caught. However, the CIA continued on with their communist plot angle. It seems like they never wanted to give up on that. Anyway, something like that.

@Roger Odisio & @Jeff Carter, Wow! Thinking aloud... It has been my belief for a long time now that the CIA used the Mexico City incident to paint Oswald as being in cahoots with Russia (via Kostikov) and Cuba (via Sylvia Duran's contacts, $6500 payment. etc.) to kill Kennedy for them. Thus setting a pretext for invasion of Cuba or war with Russia, which the generals wanted. This thing with McGeorge Bundy now has me thinking that the plan signed off by Bundy's group (whoever that is) had no plans of implicating the communists. And that the generals influenced a group of CIA people to piggyback onto the Bundy plot the part about Cuba and Russia being behind the assassination. But when Bundy's group got wind of the faked evidence pointing to Cuba and Russia, they quickly put the kibosh on that. Bundy's group apparently had no interest in having a conflict with the communists, other than Vietnam, and declared Oswald the lone killer.

Appeals to the majority fallacy. You should stick to the evidence.

Yes, of course there are a few small areas that are in deeper shadow, and thus are dark like the patch. In the particular frame Keven shows here, the black patch actually wraps around Kennedy's head to the ear. This part isn't even in shadow, yet it is as dark as the part in shadow. Of course, there is also the dead giveaway that the border of the patch is abrupt. Not natural in the least. There is no question that the patch is painted in.

Matt, In order to easily see that obvious black patch on the back of Kennedy's head, you need to scan the film on a color logarithmic scale. Scientists and engineers routinely plot data on a logarithmic scale in order to be able to see a wide range of values on a single graph. Here is an example of a historic stock price, the top plotted on a regular, linear scale, and on the bottom the same data plotted on a logarithmic scale: Notice on the regular, linear plot, that it is difficult to view fluctuations where the values are small... on the left end in this case. The logarithmic plot makes it easy to see those fluctuations. The same is true with logarithmic scans of images. It makes it easier to see variations in the darker areas of the image. And thus we can easily see the black patch. Compare the black patch on the shaded side of Kennedy's hair to the shaded side of Jackie's hair. Not surprisingly, there is no patch on Jackie's hair. Having explained that, note that the black patch CAN be made out on normal, linear-scale Z frame. It's just more difficult to see. You need to compare the shaded part of Kennedy's hair to the shaded part of Jackie's hair. Jackie's hair was darker than Kennedy's, but Kennedy's hair looks darker than hers on the back due to the black patch.

Roger, Are you sure that McGeorge Bundy's message to Air Force One was that a lone assassin had been arrested? Or could you be confusing that with his saying that there was no communist plot? The latter is a point that @Cliff Varnell brings up occasionally. Although he attributes the source of that information to Averill Harriman. This issue is very important IMO.

Yes. And you wrote a number of books promoting the ideology of a church associated with polygamist marriage and racist practices aimed at those with black skin. A church whose scripture came largely from golden plates that nobody has seen, many of which were supposedly translated by the church's founder by burying his face in a hat and peering at two stones. Do you think it right for someone to smear people like this? For being associated with people of questionable pasts?

Oh, I see that Jim already stated such a possible reason: So maybe McGeorge Bundy, writer of NSAM 273, wasn't aware of the assassination plot after all. (I probably shouldn't be responding to these posts till after I catch up on them.)

That sure seems to be the case to me, based on everything I've learned on the forum about NSAMs 263 and 273, including this thread. In which case McGeorge Bundy had to have known about the assassination plot before 11/22. UNLESS... there could have been some other reason for Bundy to write it.

Michael, What makes you think that Kennedy was going to sign NSAM 273? He hadn't even read it. Wasn't it, therefore, just a recommendation made by the military and advisors? @Jeff Carter, is the characterization I made of 273, in the prior paragraph, accurate?

Of course! Not so. With the billions of people in the world, there is a virtually smooth and continuous range of opinions as to where a line could be drawn for farfetchededness. There is no specific line over which something clearly becomes farfetched. What if there had been just one prior example of a political figure having been killed as a result of a conspiracy? Would that be enough to consider the idea to be non-farfetched? Not enough? How about two? Three? And if you think one is enough to make a second one not farfetched... consider the possibility that there are might have been a number of undetected prior cases. So even if there had been zero known cases, the idea might still not be farfetched at all. This idea that there is a determinable line over which something becomes farfetched in nonsense. It's a continuum and drawing the line is completely subjective.

It is not known why or under what direction McGeorge Bundy initiated the draft November 21, 1963. How do you guys know that 273 was written before Kennedy's death? The document may have been antedated to make it look like it was Kennedy's.

Thank you David.

Have you decided to just start making up crap now, Sandy? I didn't do what you accuse me of, Dave. Do you not know what the word "apparently" means? Kindly remove that remark. Otherwise I will report it.

That isn't really true. Mantik has collected some real human skulls that look much the same as the Harper fragment in the location where he places it. I read that in one of the links Keven provided of Mantik's work. Mantik also shows a photo of one of the skull occipital bones. I don't think he even mention's JFK Addison's disease in the article I read.

Oh my gosh, what a great point! I mean, I knew that Ebersole had testified to that, but it just didn't occur to me to use that as evidence against the BOH-hole-deniers like Pat. Not only did Ebersole say that the fragment was occipital, but he also said that it completed the skull entrance half-hole near the external occipital protuberance (EOP) that Humes found during the autopsy on the margin of the still-intact skull bone. Actually, somebody (Keven? You?) did post Ebersole's testimony regarding the fragment. I see now that I made a copy of it for my personal notes.