Sandy Larsen

On 7/7/2024 at 9:53 PM, Pat Speer said:

On 7/7/2024 at 5:28 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Jenkins happens to agree with Horne that illicit surgery took place. He just believes that the surgery took place at a location other than the Bethesda morgue. (Source: Jenkins' 2018 book, Kindle edition, pages 114, 115.)

 

On 7/7/2024 at 9:53 PM, Pat Speer said:

As far as Jenkins, he does not agree that illicit surgery took place. He accepts the possibility, but has not concluded as much.

Yes, Jenkins does indeed agree that illicit surgery took place, or at least is inclined to believe it did. Here is what he wrote in his 2018 book, At the Cold Shoulder of History:

I believe that the clandestine  surgery / examination, first described by David Lifton and later by Doug Horne, resulted in the longitudinal scalp laceration that has previously been described in the original autopsy report.

While this is outside my sphere of direct of knowledge, it does however lend some credence to Lifton's and Horne's beliefs in clandestine surgery / examination on the body before it arrived in the morgue for autopsy.

(p. 115, Kindle version)

BTW, this sure doesn't sound like Jenkins is upset with Horne the way you are, with you always pointing out that Horne repeatedly lies about Jenkins. It makes me think that you are misunderstanding or mischaracterizing something.

On 7/7/2024 at 7:02 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Sandy,

    Stansfield Turner was a U.S. admiral and President of the U.S. Naval War College before Carter appointed him CIA Director.

    I wondered if he was given a family name as a first name.

Oh, I see your point now.

As a matter of fact, my dad went by the name Rey L. (not just Rey) and if you asked him what the L stood for he'd say that he'd been told it stood for Ludlow, which was his mother's maiden name!

So I shouldn't have been surprised by your question.

Anyway, it certainly is possible Stansfield Turner and I are related through a Stansfield ancestor. But if so, I am not aware of it.

On 7/7/2024 at 9:53 PM, Pat Speer said:

Now, it should come as no surprise that Horne's persistent lies about Jenkins did not stop with his book...

Using your own standard of a researcher being labeled a liar...

What about all your persistent lies regarding the 40 witnesses who said they saw a gaping wound on the back of Kennedy's head, while you persistently say they are wrong?

23 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Why do you continue to pretend Horne is a reliable source?

Because I've never seen Horne make an intentional mistake.

23 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

One of the first to interview Jenkins was author Harrison Livingstone. Well, In his 1992 book High Treason 2, Livingstone described Jenkins' actions or quoted him directly as follows...

• “Jenkins was not allowed to leave the room, except once when Captain John H. Stover told him to go eat his lunch. He was only gone a few moments. He said it had to be after 3:30 P.M.” (Page 132)

• “As soon as they told us classes were cancelled, I was never allowed to leave. I think that was at 3:30.” (Page 133)

• “I was in the morgue all night long.” (Page 225)

• “I was there all of the time. The only time I was away from the table was probably five or ten minutes when I was told to get a sandwich. But I did not leave the room.” (Page 227)

• “Stover was the one who finally told me to go and get something to eat. I walked behind him to the three little rooms just back there, got a sandwich, took a couple of bites, and went back to the table.” (Page 228)

• “Jenkins was not allowed to leave the room, except once when Captain Stover told him to eat his lunch. He was only gone a few moments. He said it had to be after 3:30 P.M.” (Page 231)

• “As soon as they told us classes were canceled, the duty people were told to report to the morgue. I was never allowed to leave. I think that was at three-thirty.” (Page 232)

• “Jenkins said that he and Paul were told to go to the morgue at three-thirty to four P.M. Jenkins was not allowed to leave the morgue. “Paul was a kind of courier. He always had an escort, and was in and out the morgue.” (Page 238)

• “Jenkins told me that no one had access to the body in the morgue that night, or in the cold room.” (Page 247)

• “Jenkins insisted to me that he never once left the morgue from about three-thirty or four in the afternoon until nine A.M. the following morning.” (Page 249)

• Now Livingstone also interviewed Jenkins' friend and co-worker, Paul O'Connor, and quoted him as follows...

• “Jenkins was in there full-time.” (Page 276)

And this wasn't a one-time thing. When interviewed by William Law years later, Jenkins said something similar. 

Law: Were you asked not to leave the morgue?
Jenkins: I did not leave the morgue...We were not allowed to leave.

Now, as stated, this is TOXIC to Horne's theory, which holds that Dr.s Humes and Boswell performed post-mortem surgery on Kennedy's cadaver in the very morgue where Jenkins worked,. So Horne needed to convince his readers that Jenkins, whose credentials among the research community had already been established, was in and out of the morgue that night and failed to see what Humes and Boswell were up to. 

Here's Horne in his Magnum Opus Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: 

• “...James Jenkins...[is] dismissed...” (Page 1003)

• “...[Roy Kellerman] readmits...Jenkins...” (Page 1008)

• “If Jenkins was dismissed from the morgue...as I infer...” (Page 1036)

• “...Prior to 8:00 PM...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1039)

• “...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1040)

• “...Prior to 8:00 PM...he [was] not present in the morgue...” (Page 1048)

Now, it should come as no surprise that Horne's persistent lies about Jenkins did not stop with his book. On 11-26-13, he blogged about Jenkins, saying: "I have concluded that it was during this 85-minute interregnum—a period of almost an hour and a half—that the clandestine surgery took place. O’Connor and Jenkins were clearly excluded from the morgue at the time, otherwise they would also remember the modified “skull cap” performed by Humes, just as Robinson and Reed did...“ He then concluded: "James Jenkins and Paul O’Connor were not in the morgue, before 8:00 PM.”

For the record, none of this is inconsistent what I wrote in the post Pat is replying to. He's just ragging on Horne.

23 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Horne was thereby not only incorrect about Jenkins, he was making up facts and inserting them into his scenario to fool his readers. 

As I said in my last post, Horne "making up facts" was a speculative part of his theory. There is nothing wrong with speculating when forming a theory or hypothesis... it is standard practice.

Regarding the discrepancy between Horne's theory and Jenkins' account... either Jenkins is mistaken, or Horne's theory needs to be adjusted to account for the discrepancy.

On 7/7/2024 at 4:54 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Terrific self-portrait by your great grandfather.  Is your family related to former CIA Director Stansfield Turner?

Likely not related given that Stansfield was my great grandfather's last name, but Stansfield Turner's first name.

On 7/6/2024 at 2:07 PM, Pat Speer said:

Now, James Jenkins had weighed in on the [clandestine surgery] as well, and had insisted no such surgery occurred and that he was in the morgue from hours before the autopsy until the next morning, after the body had been re-constructed. So Horne invented from whole cloth for his book that Jenkins was kept from the morgue for hours, and only allowed in after the "surgery" had been completed.

First, Horne didn't say anybody, including Jenkins, was kept out of the morgue for "hours." It was a matter of minutes.

Second, the thing that you say Horne "invented from who cloth" was a speculative part of his theory. There is nothing wrong with speculating when forming a theory or hypothesis... it is standard practice.

Third, regarding the discrepancy between Horne's theory and Jenkins' account... either Jenkins is mistaken, or Horne's theory needs to be adjusted to account for the discrepancy.

As it turns out, Jenkins is one step  ahead of Horne. You see, Jenkins happens to agree with Horne that illicit surgery took place. He just believes that the surgery took place at a location other than the Bethesda morgue. (Source: Jenkins' 2018 book, Kindle edition, pages 114, 115.)

On 7/6/2024 at 3:27 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

Sandy Larsen wrote:

My proof of the gaping head-wound location is that it is statistically impossible for 40 out of 45 gaping wound witnesses to corroborate each other by placing the wound in the very same location as each other, and yet be wrong. It is a mathematical proof.

On 7/6/2024 at 3:27 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Well, Sandy will need to run that past some experts, if he's claiming that evidence as subjective and malleable as witness statements can constitute mathematical proof of anything.

Those experts might ask:

• Did all of those 40 witnesses place the wound in exactly the same location? If not, how much variation was there?
• If any witnesses were interviewed more than once, did each witness place the wound in exactly the same location each time? If not, how much variation was there?
• How precisely was the location determined in each case? Was it just someone holding his hand above his own head, or were there verbal descriptions, or did the witness mark the location on a model of a human head so that a precise measurement could be taken?
• How long after the event did these witnesses make these claims?
• How closely did each witness come to the president's body? Did they all handle the body, or did some of them only see it from a distance?
• Who was asking the questions of each witness? Did any of the questioners have an agenda that might have influenced the way they asked their questions? Were the questioners leading the witness at all? Were they interested in a precise location or a general location?

And so on. I wouldn't be surprised if Sandy's witness evidence turns out to be not quite as uniform as he thinks it is. On the plus side, it can't be as embarrassing as his failure to spot an obvious example of the parallax effect and proclaiming that as proof of alteration.

My statistical proof doesn't rely at all on the reliability of witness statements, or on any other item Jeremy cautions about. It relies only on the odds that 40 out of 45 witnesses would agree upon any given location from a binary choice. In fact, the 45 witnesses don't even need to be witnesses for the proof to hold.

18 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

 

 

 

 

 

OMG Joe, those are incredible drawings! And with only high school art class... you definitely have a natural talent.

I think you may be just as good an artist as my great grandfather (John Heber Stansfield) was. He was famous in his day and actually made a living selling his art.

Self Portrait

Springville Museum of Art

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Thank you Sandy. It's a poor picture. The drawing is better.

Get in touch with me outside the forum and I'll share with you another half dozen or so. I did this on a whim 27 years ago one evening to entertain my two young children. Haven't done any more drawing since then.

That wasn't your first drawing was it??

49 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

A free hand sketch I did of Jerry Garcia in 1997 from a book photo.

I've become a big fan of sketching since my 14 year old daughter began showing her great talent in doing that. And I must say that that is a very nice drawing of Garcia. I hope I remember to show Kimmi this drawing when she gets home.

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

How could any decently educated and informed American who benefits from ... public services NOT know these are pure socialistic programs?

Apparently they aren't as smart as one would think they should be.

5 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

The election will be a referendum on Trump and I daresay it almost doesn't matter who is the Democrates nominee, the vote will be about saving our democracy and eliminating crazy.

Leave Joe Biden where he is.  Too much chaos and confusion otherwise.

I agree 100%.

I like Joe Biden. But I would go along with ANY change if it guaranteed a win against Trump. Problem is, there is no guarantee.

I believe that sticking with Biden is the safest choice at this late date.

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

Sandy Larsen wrote:
In science, once someone has posited a theory, it is incumbent on the critics of the theory to prove it wrong. If they show that something in the theory cannot be, then it is incumbent on the adherents of the theory to correct the theory accordingly.

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

... no-one is obliged to prove anything wrong.

Yes they are, if they want to be taken seriously.

If a critic of a theory or hypothesis merely states that the theory is wrong, without showing something in the theory cannot be, then the critic is merely expressing an opinion.

To have any impact whatsoever, the critic must show a serious problem with the theory.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

Sandy Larsen wrote:
This is what Jeremy does if he can't win an argument. He attacks his opponent.

I wasn't attacking Sandy; I was merely illustrating...

Oh really? The link you posted, that would "embarrass" me (your words), wasn't meant to attack me?

Oh please, I am well aware of the shaming tactics you use to discredit people who you disagree with but can't out-argue. Remember, I'm the one who got the moderators to enforce forum rules against some of your shaming tactics.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I wasn't attacking Sandy; I was merely illustrating that Sandy's claim ("We need no further evidence to prove that the film has been altered") uses a definition of 'proof' that most people would not agree with.

My proof of the gaping head-wound location is that it is statistically impossible for 40 out of 45 gaping wound witnesses to corroborate each other by placing the wound in the very same location as each other, and yet be wrong. It is a mathematical proof.

Now, let's see what Jeremy says my proof is equivalent to:

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

For example, Sandy's head-wound witnesses and the apparent anomalies in the Zapruder film are consistent with the proposition that the film has been altered in some way; and the apparent anomalies in the moon-landings photographs are consistent with the proposition that the moon-landings photographs are not photographs of actual moon landings.

My proof is no better than the evidence that the moon landing photos are fake? WTF?

Jeremy is so desperate to win an argument that he comes up with BS like that.

22 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

On 7/4/2024 at 2:10 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

As much as I like Bernie Sanders, there's no way I would vote for him in a primary. Too many Americans are afraid of socialism.

22 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

"Afraid of socialism?"

Our society is inherently socialistic in huge ways...and must be to keep half our population from falling to the extreme poverty wayside completely.

Joe,

Yes, of course there is a great deal of socialism in America. Thanks primarily due to Democrats. But socialism is a dirty word for Republicans. A lot of Republicans are still trying to get rid of well established, successful, and popular socialist programs like social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And now add to that Obamacare.

If Bernie Sanders were to run for president, his self-proclaimed position as a socialist would be used against him big time by the Republicans. A lot of swing voters would be influenced by that negativity.

A lot of people who like Social Security and Medicare are unaware that these are socialist programs.

I'm astonished that you are unaware of American bias against socialism. Maybe you should live in a red state for a while.

In 2019, 59% of Americans said they had a unfavorable view of socialism.

58 minutes ago, Bill Fite said:

I think a great candidate would have beaten Trump easily.

I think Hillary would have beaten Trump easily had it not been for the Comey October surprise.

44 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I won't embarrass Sandy by giving a link to his claimed "proof that the Zapruder and/or Nix film was altered", which was debunked just a few minutes after he posted it. Oh, well, if you insist: 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27679-possibly-the-easiest-to-understand-proof-that-the-zapruder-andor-nix-film-was-altered/

This is what Jeremy does if he can't win an argument. He attacks his opponent.

2 minutes ago, Bill Fite said:

Misogyny might be real - but that doesn't change the fact that she was such an awful candidate and an inept campaigner that she lost to Donald Trump.  

I thought she was a great candidate.

25 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Hillary Clinton was far and away the most qualified person to run for President that year.

Yep, and she would have won had it not been for Comey's October Surprise, in spite of American misogyny. She won the popular vote by 3 million, didn't she?

As much as I like Bernie Sanders, there's no way I would vote for him in a primary. Too many Americans are afraid of socialism.

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

You could make that argument with Kilduff, or maybe Bill Newman, but you honestly believe that Gayle and especially Zapruder are pointing out gigantic entrance wounds on the side of the head? 

I don't believe that any of them are pointing out a gigantic wound. Maybe a small wound with a plume of blood.

You don't actually believe yourself that there was a gigantic wound near Kennedy's temple, do you?

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Not a single witness to Kennedy's head wound saw the gaping wound centered on Kennedy's right temple as can be seen in the Z film. This in spite of the fact that the number of corroborating head-wound witnesses is numerous.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

All of these people, with the exception of Dr. Humes, is pointing to an entrance wound. Not to the gaping exit wound we see in the Z film.

Since Dr. Humes is the man who fraudulently moved the wound location at the autopsy, his testimony isn't credible.

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

But how are questions of allegations of tampering or forgery on something of this nature to be determined? What is the correct method to find a correct answer to the question?

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Many probably won't like this but this is the only best-practices workable and reasonable method: via peer-review of specialists in the relevant fields of expertise, in the scientific journals publication process and system.

Greg,

There were more than 40 witnesses who said they saw a gaping wound on the back of Kennedy's head, and none who said they saw such a wound on Kennedy's right temple -- which is what we see in the extant Z film.

What kind of specialists and peer-reviewed journalists do you think we need to determine that the back of the head is not the same place as the right temple?

Here's the bottom line:

We know that there are alterations in the Z film because:

1. Not a single witness to Kennedy's head wound saw the gaping wound centered on Kennedy's right temple as can be seen in the Z film. This in spite of the fact that the number of corroborating head-wound witnesses is numerous.
2. The color-logarithmic copy of the Z film clearly shows a painted-on black area on the back of Kennedy's head after frame 313, the edges of which are obviously unnatural in some of the frames.

We need no further evidence to prove that the film has been altered.

However, it doesn't hurt to theorize on how the alterations were made, and what other alterations were made.

Douglas Horne has a perfectly viable theory as to how the alterations were made. Roger Odisio and Keven Hofeling have been defending Horne's theory.

Jeremy Bojczuk, Tom Gram, and others have been arguing against Horne's theory. The most repeated argument I've seen is that the theory includes some speculation, and that that somehow invalidates the argument.

The truth is, ALL theories include speculation. Without any speculation, they wouldn't be theories at all but rather statements of fact.

In science, once someone has posited a theory, it is incumbent on the critics of the theory to prove it wrong. If they show that something in the theory cannot be, then it is incumbent on the adherents of the theory to correct the theory accordingly.

After each such step, adherents of the theory should reevaluate the strength of the theory. The strength of a theory is determined roughly by what percentage of it's data points is backed by evidence and not speculation.

Horne's theory is the only one I know of that can explain the Z-film alterations we are certain of. Speculation isn't great, but there certainly is some. McMahon's testimony isn't ironclad, but it is more likely to be true than not, given that it gives a reasonable outcome and not some random gibberish.

I believe that Horne's theory is probably correct or close to it.

I believe that most, if not all, researchers who strongly disagree with Horne's theory are probably anti-alterationists.

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Ben, your recent posts resemble trolling to me.  Which I think falls under the "Stalking, taunting or harassing a member" definition for forum penalties.

Good call, Ron.

33 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

But as far as the question of Biden hubris. I'd like to ask him "what were you thinking.? and see what his response would be. I think it would be telling!

Biden was asked why he performed poorly in the debate and his reply was that it's hard to debate a liar.

Naturally, going into the debate, I had assumed that Biden had practiced how to respond to Trump known lies. Problem is, Trump lies about EVERYTHING. He makes them up on the fly. So no matter what Biden said, Trump would come back with a lie turning things around, making Biden look bad.

I think that what may have happened in the debate was that this Trump tactic frustrated Biden to the point of mild confusion and stumbling.

If I were training Biden for the next debate, I would tell him that anytime Trump said a lie that he wasn't anticipating and prepared for, just reply in an exasperated voice, "He's just making that up! That's not the way it was at all." And variations of that response. Don't get frustrated, get even... by calling Trump a liar whenever necessary