Sandy Larsen

It's just a joke! heh heh, as Kirk puts it.

The NPR, Wikipedia, the CIA and the JFKA. What are two JFKA related entities and two things Ben wants to complain about? Thank you Alex. I'll take MORE THREADS BEN CAN DOMINATE THE FORUM WITH for $400, please.

Will CNN ask Trump about his 34 felony convictions?

Jonathan, Have you not noticed that members begin debating other specific members all the time, and in fact do so in most threads? This is a debate forum after all! Regardless, Tom started debating me in James Gordon's now-closed thread. I am responding to Tom's post in that thread.

I invite Tom to reply. Remember Tom, we are debating where James Jenkins said the wound was. Not where anybody else thinks the wound was. Everybody, please allow Tom and I to debate before chiming in. Tom Gram's Reply:

After Reconstruction (Optional Reading) James Jenkins describes how the gaping wound looked both before and after the morticians had reconstructed the head. We know from the morticians' statements that, after reconstruction of the head fragments, there was a hole remaining in the back of the head about the size of a "small orange" that they had to cover with piece of rubber so that formaldehyde wouldn't trickle out. They stretched and stitched the scalp tightly to cover that hole as must as possible. What was left was a hole in the scalp the size of a silver dollar, according to James Jenkins. I shouldn't even have to mention this hole as it is fully irrelevant to the topic of this debate. But Tom Gram has been influenced by Pat Speer, and Pat has gotten this silver-dollar-sized hole all wrong too. So here in this post I quote James Jenkins' statements regarding that hole, both before and after 2015 to prove that what he said about it never changed. James Jenkins' Description of the Silver Dollar Sized Reconstruction Hole In 2018, from his book At the Cold Shoulder of History: "Now they are beginning to put the scalp and bone back in place as best they can. Everything seems to fit back except for the area of about not larger than a silver dollar. It's about I'd say maybe two inches of the occipital area on the parietal side in the area. Kind of standing looking at the head, it would be the upper left of the [original gaping] wound in the area of the [original gaping] wound." [From p. 80 of the Kindle book.] In 1991, from the video with Harrison Livingstone (see below): "After the plaster was placed by the mortician ... in the head, it was remolded... there was an area in the back of the head that had -- it was actually a hole in the back of the head that was approximately the size of the silver dollar."

James Jenkins' Description of the Gaping Head Wound In 2018, from his book At the Cold Shoulder of History: The entire area was covered with matted hair and dried blood. This made it difficult to determine the true extent of the wound. This made it appear to be a massive blowout of the back of the head, but after the scalp was reflected back from the skull, the wound that had missing scalp and bone appeared to be more consistent with the shape and dimensions previously described by Dr. McClelland. [From p. 121 of the Kindle book.] This is the wound drawing that Dr. McClelland made to illustrate the wound he saw at Parkland in 1963. This closely matches the wound that I saw after the scalp was retracted from the skull. [From p. 129 of the Kindle book.] In 1991, from the video with Harrison Livingstone (see below): I would like to kind of reverse a little bit and go back to what the wound looked like when we actually took the towels off the head at the initial. The wound was a massive type of wound where it was an open gaping wound approximately the size of a closed fist or maybe a little larger, more similar to what Dr. McClelland says in his drawing. ...as far as the area that it was in, I remember the wound a little higher maybe than in the drawing."

A couple weeks ago on the James Gordon thread, @Tom Gram began debating me on where James Jenkins placed the gaping wound on Kennedy's head. One of his last statements before Gordon locked the thread was this: Tom Gram: "Jenkins on multiple occasions placed the wound at the top of the head." The truth is that Jenkins NEVER placed the wound at the top of the head. Never. He always placed it unambiguously on the back of the head. He said that what he saw was close to what the (well-known) McClelland drawing shows: Jenkins said the wound was about the size of a fist. I was amazed at the vehemence with which Tom argued his case given he clearly knows little about it. I know I wouldn't do that. Begin Debate I will begin the debate. The only thing I need to do to debate my side is to quote James Jenkins himself, which I do in my next post. Pat Speer claims that Jenkins changed his story in around 2015. This is not true, and I prove so by quoting Jenkins both before and after 2015. Jenkins' story remains the same. I get his post-2015 statements from his book At the Cold Shoulder of History, published in 2018, and his pre-2015 statements from a 1991 video. Now, for my argument....

I invite Tom to reply. Remember Tom, we are debating where James Jenkins said the wound was. Not where anybody else thinks the wound was. Everybody, please allow Tom and I to debate before chiming in. Tom Gram's Reply:

The Zapruder film shows a huge blob coming out from the right temple area. The right temple area is fully intact in the autopsy photos. I notice that you can't argue the other evidence that the Zapruder film was altered... that not a single medical professional saw such a wound, nor did the autopsy report note such a wound,

Okay. So you're the kind of guy who believes your cookies are magically disappearing till you get an exterminator to certify you have a mouse problem. Got it!

The notion that we must have documentary evidence or proof of the Z film being skirted away for clandestine alteration in order to prove that alteration actually occurred is folly. That is like saying that the only way of knowing a mouse ate a cookie would be to have documentary evidence or proof of having a mouse infestation. If at one moment you have a cookie and at a later moment it is gone, and there is no way a person or animal could have gotten in to take it, the disappearance of the cookie alone is sufficient proof that you have a mouse. Unless you believe in magic. The fact that the Zapruder film shows a huge chunk of the head being blasted out of the right temple area, and that not a single medical professional saw such a wound; the autopsy photos show no such wound; and the autopsy report notes no such wound, is sufficient evidence to prove that the Z film was altered. Knowing anything beyond that -- like how the film was skirted off to Hawkeye Works -- is icing on the cake.

It's pretty obvious to me that Biden doesn't want the American public to know that the CIA killed President Kennedy. Not only would that put a big black eye on American history, but it would lead to the dismantling of the CIA. What is also obvious to me is that in no way is Trump going to get the records released.

I agree Cliff, that's a terrible deal. Even if it were guaranteed the JFK record would be released if Trump were elected, I'd still vote against him. There's just too much damage he could do to our democracy and who knows what else.

Interesting. But what order should I watch them? Any preference?

Which films of Dealey Plaza during the shooting surfaced years later?

William, My 14 year old daughter has been watching Breaking Bad (she's on the final season now) and she's been trying to get me to watch it. She said it's the best series she has ever watched. Now I know she has good taste.

Oh no... this is so sad. (I didn't read the thread till just now.) Thankfully the Talbots will be getting some help through the generosity of David's adoring fans, friends, and followers. Take care, David. Wishing for the best possible recovery.

I didn't thinks I'd ever see this again. The volume is low... turn it up high.

I've wondered the same things, Denny. If I ever want to discuss Star Wars, maybe I'll start a thread titled "RFK1A, R2D2, and the JFKA."

My info comes from Deep Politics III, year 2000. Jeremy gets his info from the Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, year 1993. The two may differ. Scott doesn't describe Phase Two of the plot as being a "consequence" of Phase One. He describes it as an alternative... one that would be chosen in the event that Phase One was rejected due to its potential for leading to nuclear war. From State Secret III: Phase One put forward the phantom of an international plot, linking Oswald to the USSR, to Cuba, or to both countries together. This phantom was used to invoke the danger of a possible nuclear confrontation, which induced Chief Justice Earl Warren and other political notables to accept Phase Two, the equally false (but less dangerous) hypothesis that Oswald killed the President all by himself. For the record, I never said that.

Well geez Pat, of course it doesn't add up when you paraphrase it with your own spin and biases added. It probably would add up if Horne explained it himself.

Thanks Pat. Somehow I missed those threads. Could have been when I was in the hospital. The theory is highly unlikely of course, but I wouldn't mind seeing Lifton's evidence. I can't believe that I remember this particular forum member's name after all these years, but Ashton Gray had an idea where a Parkland doctor could have killed Kennedy with a special kind of needle, and nobody there would noticed that he wasn't just performing a tracheotomy. I recall he was a temperamental guy. I once referred to this idea as "Ashton's theory" and he responded with a post saying "Kerplunk!" or something like that. I later learned that, though he liked to talk about the theory and show a photo of the special needle, he hated people calling the idea his theory. And that his "Kerplunk!" meant that he was putting me on ignore.

I''ll tell you what kind. The kind who don't want to be investigated by the FBI for the assassination. I don't know how you can not understand that. They haven't shown that. The second NPIC team may have had a copy of the Z film twice, the first time to make the briefing boards, and the second time to do the timing analysis.

Pat, I've never heard of a conspiracy theory where it is thought that Parkland witnesses were in on the plot. Can you give me names of some who believe that, and what the role of the Parkland witnesses supposedly was?