Sandy Larsen

Mark, First, I believe a number of things that Jeremy thinks are far-fetched, not just H&L. Second, here is what I responded to: And what Jeremy had responded to: And what Bill Brown had responded to: That's four serial exchanges (when you include mine that Jonathan harassed me for), and there is not a single word mentioning H&L theory in any of them. Yet plenty of instances of "farfetched." Obviously the immediate topic was "farfetched beliefs," not H&L theory. Third, yes context matters. As I said, the immediate context was "farfetched beliefs." The larger context was "theorist shaming," i.e. the subject of this thread. H&L wasn't the context of that exchange. So no, Jonathan wasn't responding to what I said. He was just being annoying... because that is what he does. I was trying to keep the sentence pithy. But there's quite a bit of truth even in the way I phrased it. An "apologist" is just a person who defends something considered to be unpopular by the people using the term. If WC apologists were so inclined, they could refer to conspiracy theorists as CT apologists. I see no reason to take offense.

I personally believe that Shelley was a CIA employee. But that doesn't mean anything with regard to the coverup. The CIA controlled the assassination plot, whereas the FBI controlled the coverup. Who knows what Shelley would have said had somebody asked where Oswald was during the shooting. The smart thing would have been for the authorities to have The Talk with him, to keep him quiet. What you've suggested solves only the problem of getting the official narrative into the record. Which is fine. But it doesn't keep the witnesses of Oswald's innocence from blabbing to the neighbors and newspapers. They need to be given "The Talk" to solve that problem.

@Jim Hargrove knows the code word for the Oswald Project. Sorry, I don't recall what it is.

Good! So you agree it's possible. The people I suspect of seeing Oswald out on the TSBD steps all gave first-day statements, in which they stated when and where they saw Oswald that day. Had they said they saw Oswald on the steps, that part would have been left off their statements and they would have been strongly advised to keep their mouths shut till further notice. Later they would have been given the patriotic talk that I mentioned before. That's my speculation. But one way or another they would have been kept from talking. Any other witnesses who saw Oswald outside would have been dealt with, as they became known. As a matter of fact, in April 1964, the FBI got statements from every employee in the TSBD building that day, asking if they saw Oswald. (CE 1381). Do you seriously believe that witnesses who saw Oswald outside the snipers nest would have been treated so cavalierly? I certainly don't. I said that I suspect three people saw Oswald outside. Do you consider that to be "large scale?" Apparently Frazier took his (possible) patriotic conversation with LBJ seriously. But... Even you said above, "Granted there could have been one or more witnesses who had exculpatory witness knowledge of Oswald and never spoke of it, though none known." Well, if there are one or more who haven't spoken of it in all this time, then why can't that be true for the three people I suspect of seeing Oswald? It appears that you have a double standard on our respective beliefs, mine needing to cross a higher bar. Why is that? You said above, "Granted there could have been one or more witnesses who had exculpatory witness knowledge of Oswald and never spoke of it, though none known." Well, if there are one or more who haven't spoke of it in all this time, then why can't that be true for the three people I suspect of seeing Oswald? There goes your double standard again. Frazier was talked into lying about a large paper bag in order to help the WC explain how Oswald got a rifle into the TSBD. However, Frazier need not feel guilt over it because he essentially added to the lie that the bag was too short to carry a rifle. You don't believe what most of us do. Oswald had no such bag. And Yates' hitchhiker wasn't Oswald.

WC = Coverup 1 + SBT Lie HSCA = Coverup 2 + Make SBT Lie More Viable + Sure Up Other Lies

Greg, I think it is HIGHLY likely that a few TSBD employees know for a fact that Oswald did not shoot at Kennedy. Because they happened to see him when he was supposed to be in the sniper's nest. So, yes, of course those people have been convinced they must take that information to their graves. People like you and Pat Speer seem to have trouble accepting that a coverup of a middle-of-the-day, middle-of-a-crowd event is going to require a good deal of evidence and eyewitness alteration. I find it astonishing that you guys think that way. Because of your refusal to accept all that tampering, you are forced to come up with all kinds of convoluted pretzel-logic explanations for things that you can't otherwise understand. For me, the answer usually comes pretty easy after I familiarize myself with the known facts. If the evidence calls for an alteration, then alteration it is! Once things start falling into place, it becomes easier and easier to figure things out. Sometimes there is literally only one possible explanation for something. For example, Oswald's handler had to have instructed him to take a job at the TSBD. Because he had to be working there in order to play his role as patsy for the shooting. The plotters certainly wouldn't have left that up to chance. Roy Truly must have similarly been instructed to hire Oswald. Well then, for Truly to be taking instructions like that, he must necessarily have been CIA, like Oswald was. When you think about it, there surely had to be preparation in the TSBD for the shooters to get into and especially out of the building. How could the plotters get that done? Either the building owner or manager must have been CIA, or the business was a CIA front. I choose the latter for reasons I won't go into. If it's true that Ruth Paine called Truly for Oswald, then she must be CIA. Unless somebody can tell me how the plotters got her to do that. As for Frazier and the others who knew Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy, that's a somewhat different situation. Oswald, Truly, and Ruth were controlled by the CIA plotters. In contrast, Frazier, Shelley, and Lovelady were controlled by the coverup artists... elements of the Warren Commission and FBI. Those witnesses had to be convinced to keep secret that they had seen Oswald on the steps (or on the first floor) during the shooting. I can only guess what speech they were given and by whom. I think it was probably a patriotic speech given by some authority figure... maybe even LBJ himself. He would tell them that there was evidence of the assassination being an international incident, and that Oswald was involved. But that the government needed to keep it quiet, for fear that it could lead to WW3 and the possible use of nuclear weapons. Apparently you believe that nobody saw Oswald when he was supposed to be in the sniper's nest. Let me ask you this... had there been witnesses to Oswald not being in a position to shoot Kennedy, how do you think the government would have handled it? Do you honestly believe they would have then given up on the idea of blaming Oswald? If so, what then? Do you think they would have changed their minds and tried to find out who in the CIA was behind the assassination? And allowed the American public to know that they suspected our CIA had pulled off a coup d'etat against its own president? Do you think, that they thought, the American people could "handle the truth? " I don't.

Jim, I think it's possible that the CIA may have later on chosen another man (or men) to be Oswald's double... one who looked more like HARVEY than LEE did. Because, you know that HARVEY and LEE probably didn't look very much like each other after growing up.

And for all you know, the WC coverup could have included forged photos. But for some reason you just won't accept that.

Alan, Mr. Speer has a hard time distinguishing between the truth and the Warren Commission's fabricated official narrative. Sometimes so much so that it seems like he believes there was no coverup at all... just a bunch of misunderstandings. The Parkland doctors, for example. According to Pat, they all accidentally thought the top of the head was the back because he was lying down, and therefore said the gaping wound was there. See, no coverup there!

Absolutely. I am a believer in the H&L theory... however, I'm not convinced that the LEE Oswald from New Orleans was always HARVEY'S double after HARVEY'S time in Russia. I kinda think that there were a number of doubles. HARVEY'S double in Mexico City was blond and short.

Why has he not been banned? My understanding is that banning is what the admin team used to do. I think they let things fester with the worst members till finally it got to the point where they wanted to ban the person. Mark Knight wrote something that gave me the impression that he (or they?) were unhappy with that method of punishment. That it was too drastic. I came on as a new admin member around that time. I poked around the forum software and figured out a way of applying warning points that penalized gently in most cases, but would become exponentially more punishing for the worst offenders. We gave it a try and we all like it. It adjusts and enforces penalties automatically. All we have to do is select which rule a member broke, and it takes care of the rest. I don't think we've banned anybody since then. Though one member was so bad that he got something like a 6 month suspension from posting. I suspect that a time will come when we will vote on the worst offenders being banned. Just to save other forum members from having to deal with them.

Thanks Jim. Beats the heck out of me. What I do know is that Jonathan likes to tell people they are wrong. Which would be fine if he then gave an argument or showed some evidence supporting his contention. But he rarely does. That's been my observation.

I'll bet you haven't even studied the evidence.

These are all examples of an assassination ringleader checking out rifles for his gunmen. The plotters had no reason to make Oswald look like the shooter. What they cared about was Cuba and Russia being blamed for the killing. Oswald's real purpose was to be a link between the killing and the communists, so that the investigative authorities would ultimately blame the communists. I don't know if Oswald took the bus or if he left in a Rambler. Maybe one of the gunmen took the bus. If so, maybe it was a decoy gunman. It's a mystery. Regardless, even a ringleader wouldn't want to be caught. Well, that is a belief of yours that I don't share. Because even a ringleader wouldn't want to be imprisoned or get the electric chair. Okay, but I don't. But there WERE others... the real gunmen who killed Kennedy. My theory brings in only a few character, and they were all fictional!

Yeah, that's for sure. Nobody has mentioned Nikki Haley's latest strategy, having switched to anti-Trump attack dog. Wow, I haven't heard anybody lay it on at well as Nikki does against Trump. And she has Republican voters as her audience! (Unlike the anti-Trump commentators I see on MSNBC.) Not to mention independents. She may not gain a lot of votes for Biden, but she's certainly going to lose some for Trump. Remember, Republican voters haven't heard a lot of what she says about Trump because they get their news from Fox, etc. Hopefully she doesn't drop out when she loses in her home state, South Carolina. Unfortunately, that is coming up soon. Around the end of February, I think. She may stay in the race if only in case Trump gets a criminal conviction. Or dies.

@Jim Hargrove rejects the notion that Oswald would be allowed by his handler to be outside during the shooting, given that he was the designated patsy. My study of the Mexico City shenanigans recorded in the Lopez Report and related documents, as well as David Joseph's report on the faked bus trips into and out of MC, has led me to believe the same as what many other researchers (like Peter Dale Scott and Jim DiEugenio) believe, and that is that the purpose of MC was to paint Oswald as being in cahoots with Cuba and Russia for the purpose of assassinating Kennedy. This would provide pretext for invasion of Cuba, if not a nuclear first strike on Russia, as some generals were advocating. Where my belief may differ from others' is that Oswald wasn't painted as a gunman, but rather as a ringleader. The early evidence, which was quickly swept under the rug, was that (fake) Oswald traveled to Mexico City by CAR with others. This was covered up and the bus trip substituted because the former suggested a conspiracy. And the Johnson Administration was actively covering up any suggestion of a conspiracy from the very first day. Oswald, as a PATSY RINGLEADER (not shooter), didn't need to be anywhere in particular on 11/22. Outside with Bill Shelley watching the P. Parade was perfectly fine with the assassination plotters. BTW, this would also explain the existence of a Mauser in the sniper's nest, only to be replaced by the coverup artists with a gun of their choosing... one whose provenance could not be revealed by the plotters, should they decide to do so.

I believe that Shelley, Lovelady, and Frazier all saw Oswald out on the steps and that they were all under pressure to keep their mouths shut. I believe that that is the reason they were chosen to provide the fake WC testimony they wanted to hear. Although they were all allowed to hedge their testimonies, to help ease their consciences. For example, Frazier was allowed to suggest that the bag was too short to hold a gun.

The bulk of the evidence shows that Oswald claimed in his interrogation to be outside with Shelley. This is recorded not only in Fritz's handwritten notes but also in one of the interrogation reports. Agent Hosty's corroborating handwritten note, that Oswald claimed to be outside watching the P. Parade, was found by Malcolm Blunt and Bart Kamp a few years ago. There really is no reason NOT to believe that Oswald said this in his interrogation. If one takes that to be factual (that Oswald said it), then the interrogation report has a timing issue, in that it indicates Oswald had his 2nd floor encounter with Officer Baker, and AFTERWORD ate lunch. Which is wrong. If you remove the sentence about the 2nd floor encounter, then the timing issue is resolved and everything makes sense. Including Fritz's note agreeing with Hosty's. All in all, it is HIGHLY likely that the 2nd floor encounter never occurred. Recall also that Baker himself never mentioned the encounter himself in his early statement, even though he knew that Oswald was the prime suspect. The bottom line is that, if one considers that the 2nd floor encounter was a fabrication added to discredit Vickie Adams (whose testimony indicates no Oswald coming down the steps from the sniper's nest), then ALL the statements make sense. Otherwise there are a lot of contradictions. Conclusion: The 2nd floor Oswald/Baker encounter never happened. Oswald's alibi was that he was outside watching the P. Parade with Bill Shelley. Oswald's alibi was covered up... probably so that the public wouldn't spend a great deal of energy looking for Oswald in photographs and films. The (fabricated) official narrative is that Oswald's alibi was that he was inside on the first floor.

Oh! That's a happy thought! I didn't realize they are so old. (Problem is, I'm not a lot younger myself. Doh!)

I don't understand... do they consider Texas to be different than the other states? If so, why?

I asked Jonathan to remove a post violating a forum rule. He didn't. So I have issued him twice the number of penalty points for that given violation. Any member has the right to ask another member to removed a comment that violates a forum rule. The person will get twice the number of penalty points if they don't. (Of course, if the comment does not violate a forum rule, no penalty points will be issued.

I believe in being 1) honest, and 2) transparent. You wouldn't want me to hide any bias I might have, would you Tracy?

Here is what Tracy wrote in his article and what Jonathan posted: Armstrong says that the woman caller "knew the Tippits were related to Officer JD Tippit." This statement is apparently an attempt to give weight to the woman's allegations. Unfortunately, it is incorrect. The FBI document states, "Mrs. Tippit received a telephone call from unknown woman who asked if Mr. Tippit was a policeman and if he was related to the policeman Tippit who was shot in Dallas”. I did a quick investigation and found the following about each of Tracy's sentences: Armstrong says that the woman caller "knew the Tippits were related to Officer JD Tippit." This is most likely a true statement. The anonymous caller in all likelihood discovered from reading a local news article that relatives of J.D. Tippit lived in nearby Connecticut. So she knew that the Tippits she was trying to contact were indeed related to J.D. Tippit in Dallas. So when she asked Mrs. Tippit if they were related to J.D., that was merely to confirm she was talking to the correct Mrs. Tippit. This statement is apparently an attempt to give weight to the woman's allegations. Unfortunately, it is incorrect. Nope. As I showed in #1, it is a correct statement. The FBI document states, "Mrs. Tippit received a telephone call from unknown woman who asked if Mr. Tippit was a policeman and if he was related to the policeman Tippit who was shot in Dallas”. The FBI documents doesn't state that. Though it looks like somebody's paraphrase of what the FBI document states. Probably it was Armstrong who said it. Next, I assume Armstrong wrote it. [John Armstrong wrote], "Mrs. Tippit received a telephone call from unknown woman who asked if Mr. Tippit was a policeman and if he was related to the policeman Tippit who was shot in Dallas”. This is correct. The bottom line is that everything that Armstrong wrote is accurate. Therefore, Tracy's comment about the item Armstrong wrote being inaccurate is wrong.

Michael, Do you know if Dr. Chesser agrees with Dr. Mantik's occipital placement of the Harper fragment?

Pat Speer is a (retired) moderator. Moderators cannot be put on Ignore.