Sandy Larsen

Tom, I've thought for some time that HARVEY (one of the two Oswalds) assumed the identity of LEE (the other, real Oswald) because his true background* would be problematic for his mission, which was to gather intelligence on Russia's working environment and structure. And hopefully more (from the CIA's POV). But that the later Oswald doubles were most likely other CIA assets, not LEE (the real Oswald). Is that your understanding of what Blunt believed? I'm just curious to know if other people agree with my take on H&L. *I believe that HARVEY's true background was that he was living in a Russian speaking household as a child. And that is what explains his fluency in the Russian language.

Oh my god. You couldn't just drop it. I'm a native English speaker pal. It's more likely your English is lacking. Jeremy got my "analogy."

I'll bet that the points made by Jeremy -- and not responded to by Jim -- were either matters of opinion; trivial solutions like a silly mistake was made; or some other lame points for which there is no reply other than something equally lame like, "okay, that's your opinion." Just look at Jeremy's first sentence quoted above. He says, "[I explained] why Burroughs was an unreliable witness." How does Jeremy expect Jim to reply to that? By saying, "By golly, your opinion is right! What was I thinking? Silly of me to think that Burroughs said something true!" ?

Thanks Keven. That is very helpful to my understanding of the Harper fragment.

To new members: I can't comment on the topic of a second Oswald in the balcony of the theater, because I haven't studied it. But I've been following Jim Hargrove's presentations of H&L evidence for years and I have never seen Jim do what Jeremy Bojczuk claims he does in the quote above. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing a substantial debunking of what Jim has argued regarding H&L theory. Note that I speak only for early H&L theory... before the time Oswald defected to Russia. Jeremy is full of it.

Oh dear. Well, why do you think somebody slashed the top of Kennedy's scalp multiple times somewhere between Parkland Hospital and the autopsy? His scalp wasn't shredded at Parkland but it sure was at Bethesda. Or is this just another one of those things you sweep under the rug and shrug your shoulders?

Not so. As I will show below. A reasonable member of the public, with no preconceived opinions about the assassination, would believe that the government-issued Warren Commission Report is the definitive guide to the assassination. And thus would consider most of what conspiracy theorists believe to be farfetched. Since Jeremy says that those who promote farfetched things (according to the standards of a reasonable member of the public) should not be moderators, then according to him no conspiracy theorist should be a moderator. (Unless he keeps his thoughts to himself.) Which would leave only WC apologists for that role.

Aguilar's list includes other people at the hospitals, like technicians, FBI Agents, etc. And it covers both Parkland and Bethesda. They all had opinions on where the gaping hole was. Nearly all of them put a large hole on the back of the head. Entrance wounds are often small. But some of them saw the wound. Mantik says the head x-rays were altered. Remember the white patch?

I used all the Parkland doctors and nurses with one exception. They are the best witnesses. The doctor I didn't use was Adolph Giesecke. I didn't use him because, even though he said the wound extended to the lower back of the head, he also has it on the left side. Which is wrong. He did say he was there but a short time. You can see the doctors and my methodology for categorizing them here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30062-on-the-reliability-of-witness-recollections/?do=findComment&comment=526154 That's been soundly debunked. But even if you were right, the odds would still be greatly against your side of the argument. Were Jackson and Jacks Parkland doctors? I used only Parkland doctors and nurses. I'll add the Dealey Plaza witnesses if you want. Yes, got him. I never said it was unanimous. That is called "sampling" in statistics and it is widely done. Making the sample size larger will give a more precise result. I'll add any other groups you want. I think we should include them all. But I can see right now that the odds with everybody counted will be astronomically against your side of the argument.

It's about the truth, Pat. The truth. You say I used witnesses that somebody cherry picked. This is a lie... I used all the Parkland witnesses and you know it. Almost every witness said early on that the gaping wound was on the back of the head. It's simply impossible for them all to be wrong. The math proves it.

Dr. Aguilar must have used a regular calculator instead of a scientific one, as it apparently hit its limit. 1/2 to the 44th power isn't 1 in 4,294,967,296. It is 1 in 17,592,186,044,416. Which in the real world is zero. That is to say, the odds of 44 doctors wrongly placing the gaping wound on the back of the head is zero. This is proof that the gaping wound was indeed on the back of the head. And proof that the Zapruder film has been altered. And proof that the back-of-head autopsy photos are forgeries. And proof that the autopsy skull x-rays have been altered. There's just no getting around this.

A hole in the top of the head... which nobody saw. Not a single medical professional at Parkland Hospital saw a hole at the top of Kennedy's head. 17 of the 18 Parkland doctors and nurses said they saw a gaping hole at the back of the head. None of them saw a hole on the top of his head. If you are right, that the gaping hole was at the top of the head, then 17 of the 18 doctors and nurses got it wrong. That's a phenomenon called mass hallucination. I calculated the odds of so many witnesses being wrong and found it to be 1 in 1,272,588,445. In other words, scientifically impossible. (I did the calculation here.) The odds of 17 or 18 doctors and nurses getting it wrong is the same as tossing a coin and having it land heads-up 30 times in a row. We will all be dead before that happens.

Using Jeremy's line of reasoning, that is precisely what he is calling for. That the forum be moderated by WC apologists. But from your response I can see that you really don't get my analogy, if that is what it can be called. Perhaps because English is your second language. Or maybe different thinking due to cultural differences.

I did the very same analysis one would do when calculating the odds of a coin flip landing on heads or tails 17 out of18 times. THERE IS NO NEED TO DO THIS ON EVERY COIN IN THE WORLD to get a valid calculation. Same thing is true with the witnesses. There is no need to include every witness to get a valid calculation. Wrong! Seventeen specifically said on the BACK of the head. Okay. Do you want me do the calculation for a different group of witnesses? How about the Dealey Plaza witnesses? Or the Bethesda witnesses? Oh I know... How about I do the calculation for ALL the witnesses? No matter what, you're going to lose. (As long as you're not allowed to cherry-pick the way you like to do.) Yeah, once made aware of their account being inconsistent with the official story. That's the reason you like to use the changed testimonies of those witnesses. But okay, no problem. I'll do the calculation using the statements of ALL the witnesses... including those who changed their minds! I'll even let you misinterpret McClelland's testimony the way you like to do. You'll still lose. There are just far too many back-of-head witnesses for you to win.

Jim, Isn't there some truth to David Lifton's theory? I mean, why is it that somebody slashed the top of Kennedy's scalp multiple times somewhere between Parkland Hospital and the autopsy? And why did somebody substitute someone else's brain for what was left of Kennedy's, only for it to fall out during the autopsy without so much as severing the optic nerves or the spinal cord? I mean, that just doesn't happen in real life. You do believe, don't you, that there is a black patch painted on the back of Kennedy's head at >Z313, as well as a painted in blob coming out the side? These are rather obvious alterations that only an anti-alterationist could deny IMO.

Sure, to you. But H&L theory doesn't seem farfetched to me at all, now that I've studied the evidence for it. I'll give you an example of what I think is farfetched: That the gaping wound on Kennedy's head was on the top of the head rather than the back. Again, now that I've studied the evidence. No, not at all. I used that statement to illustrate that Jeremy's line of reasoning makes little sense. I'll explain. First, it is obvious and well known that CTers believe a lot of things that are farfetched, from the point of view of WC apologists (i.e. those who believe the WC conclusions). According to Jeremy's line of reasoning, believers of farfetched ideas should not be moderators. So I said something like, "Using Jeremy's line of reasoning, no CTer should be a moderator. Because to WC apologists, all CTers promote far-fetched beliefs." I hope you see how I made a valid point there.

I've never penalized, or even warned, a person for believing a theory is farfetched.

My investigation showed that 1) what Armstrong said in most likelihood was true, but 2) Tracy's misunderstanding and misreporting on it didn't rise to the level of being "demonstrably" false. Nobody reported it and nobody received a warning or penalty for it.

Let me get this straight... You believe that the reporter of the news article just randomly picked a Tippit out of the local Connecticut phonebook and wrote in a newspaper article that the Connecticut Tippits might, just MIGHT be related to the Tippits in Dallas! Well, dang, that's certainly newsworthy! And then BY SHEAR COINCIDENCE, it turns out that that Connecticut Tippits WERE INDEED related to the ones in Dallas. (The FBI report states that the Connecticut Tippits said they were related.) Yet, knowing this, the reporter FAILED TO MENTION IT in his article! Oh Puleeze! Obviously the person who who wrote the FBI report made a mistake. Of course the news article stated that the Connecticut Tippits were related to the Dallas Tippits. That is what made it newsworthy. (Something that might be reported in a small community.)

Greg, Now that I understand the misunderstanding, here is what I maintain. I believe that Oswald was out on the TSBD steps during the motorcade. It is likely that a few people noticed him being there. The government couldn't have these people going around and telling their families, neighbors, and newspapers that they knew Oswald was innocent because he was standing right next to them when the president went by. Something had to be don't to keep them quiet for the rest of their lives. And so the government did something to keep them quiet. I can only guess what the government did. I believe it is likely that the government appealed to their patriotism. I believe it is likely that somebody who was highly regarded explained to them that if word of Oswald's innocence got out, it would open a can of worms that would implicate Russia in the assassination and that this could lead to WW3. I have reason to believe that precisely three people on the steps noticed that Oswald was there. Somehow you got from that that I was talking about a "large-scale subornation to perjury of civilian witnesses." Now I understand that, when you said that, you were referring to something entirely different and completely unrelated. You explain what you meant here: People who had handlers were, generally speaking, FBI and CIA assets. I've only spoken of the latter, CIA assets. Likely CIA assets are Oswald, Shelley, Ruth Paine, and either Truly or -- if there was such a person -- someone who could control Truly. As CIA assets, there would have been little trouble controlling their statements and testimonies. CIA assets lie all the time. Shelley, Lovelady, Baker, and Truly all lied. Their statements, the Darnell film, and handwritten interrogation notes prove it. The second-floor Oswald/Baker encounter never occurred. Shelley's and Lovelady's walk over to the railroad yard never occurred. The WC fabricated the second floor encounter so they could identify where Oswald supposedly was after he supposedly shot Kennedy. (In reality he was outside watching the P. Parade.) Unfortunately, Vickie Adams' testimony debunked the encounter. So the WC recruited Shelley and Lovelady into a lie that would discredit Adams' testimony. I believe that Shelley and Lovelady were chosen to lie for the WC because they had already been talked into lying about seeing Oswald standing next to them on the TSBD steps. I think that Buell Frazier was also one of those who saw Oswald out on the steps. I believe that he was also chosen to lie for the WC because he had already been asked to lie about Oswald watching the P. Parade next to him. So he lied about the bag. I'm not sure how they got Linnie Mae to lie. No, just four people. Not counting the CIA assets, given that they are trained to lie. Four people. Why are you surprised that people can remain silent for life? Hundreds of thousands of CIA officers and assets have done it over the decades. You think four more couldn't have as well? No, I don't. My claims are backed by solid evidence, and even proof in some cases. And maybe you haven't noticed, but most of my beliefs are widely held by the conspiracy community. What doesn't make sense is that you can't believe people lied in this massive government coverup. That's a real howler if you ask me!

Ron, Like you, I believe that the CIA painted Oswald as a commie, Castro supporter. And that the assassination was based on Operation Mockingbird. I suppose that those operations could be called coverups given that they covered up the truth about Oswald. I prefer to call them parts of the assassination plot. That way it leaves the word "coverup" to mean what the WC did to hide the part of the plot where Oswald supposedly conspired with the Cubans and Russians. And what the WC did to make it look like Oswald shot Kennedy. But it is interesting that the WC actually promoted parts of the assassination plot.

Suppose that I and other alterationists are right (which, of course, we are). I thought it would be interesting to calculate the odds of the 17 out of 18 Parkland doctors and nurses being correct in their placement of the gaping wound on the back of the head. In this case our variables are: p = 1/4 = 0.75 trials = 18 events = 17 Using the online BDF calculator, I calculate the odds to be 1 in 2.96. Therefore, the odds of 17 out of 18 Parkland doctors and nurses picking the correct location is close to 1 in 3. In other words, it's fairly close to even odds for 17 out or 18 to get it right. Which is to be expected So, while what Pat thinks is scientifically impossible, what we think is entirely possible and close to expected.

Oh absolutely, I agree. Let's calculate the odds of so many Parkland doctors and nurses picking the wrong gaping wound location... the back instead of the top or side. Of the 18 Parkland doctors and nurses who said they saw the gaping wound, 17 placed it on the back of the head. None placed it on the top, and only one placed it on the right side. According to you, 17 of those 18 medical professionals got it wrong. I will use the binomial distribution formula (BDF) to calculate the odds of that happening. If we conservatively assume that each professional is (only) twice as likely as a random coin toss to get it right, the probability of getting it right is 3 in 4 and the probability of getting it wrong is 1 in 4. p = 1/4 = 0.25 trials = 18 events = 17 Using this online BDF calculator, I calculate the odds to be 1 in 1,272,588,445. Therefore, the odds of 17 out of 18 Parkland doctors and nurses picking the wrong location is less than 1 in a billion. In other words, it's virtually impossible for so many to get it wrong. I'm sorry Pat, but what you believe about the location of the gaping wound is scientifically impossible.

Ron, If you are saying that Shelley was Oswald's CIA handler, that might be true. But I don't see that there is any way for us to know that for sure. But beyond that (i.e. your second paragraph) I think you are confusing the assassination plot with the FBI/WC coverup. Please follow along with what I say here because I want to understand where your thinking diverges from mine. The CIA assassination plotters do various things to make it look like Oswald is a communist sympathizer and is a loose canon. The CIA assassination plotters use the Mexico City trip to make it look like Oswald has agreed to kill Kennedy for the Cubans and Russians. Part of their fake story is that the Cubans give Oswald a $6500 down payment for the hit. The goal is to create a pretext for America to invade Cuba. Oswald has no idea any of this is going on. He is the CIA's patsy. CIA-hired assassins kill Kennedy. The FBI begins their investigation. The CIA assassination plotters are expecting the FBI to conclude that Oswald killed Kennedy for the Cubans and Russians, and was paid $6500 for the hit. The military Generals are hoping Johnson will respond by ordering the bombing and invasion of Cuba. BUT... President Johnson doesn't bite. Maybe he suspects the CIA is behind the plot. Regardless, he's afraid of starting a war that ends up being WW3. So he says, no to that. And he begins a coverup designed to erase any sign of an international conspiracy, and any sign of the CIA being behind the assassination. The FBI begins the coverup, but ultimately it is the WC lawyers calling the shots for the cover-up, with the aid of the FBI. In the process of removing the Cubans and Russians from the equation, this leaves only the CIA's patsy -- Oswald -- as the killer. In other words, the WC/FBI coverup artists do what is necessary to change Oswald from patsy role to assassin role. In other words, the WC/FBI coverup artists not only cover-up the communist angle, but also frame Oswald as the sole gunman. The reason I went through this is because in you second paragraph above, you said: "I believe the CIA was involved in the cover up from before the assassination." And I'm trying to understand what you are talking about. Because if you read what I wrote, you'll see that to me, everything the CIA did was assassination plotting. I can't see that the did any covering up at all. So can you tell , my numbered list above, the ones you think correspond to the CIA covering something up?

There were three, not dozens.