Sandy Larsen

@Roger Odisio Roger, any time you explain why something in your story had to be the case, then that implies that what you are explaining is speculation. In fact, it is better than pure speculation because it has a reason for being. But what you have described is in fact a theory, given the fact that there are instances of speculation in it. There is nothing wrong with theories. For those of us who accept the fact that the Z film has been altered, your theory serves well in explaining how the alteration was done in such a short period of time. To me your theory looks viable, and so I accept it. Your critics don't accept it, and that's fine. But if they want to stop others from accepting it too, they need to prove that something is wrong with it. After which you can either update your theory accordingly, or you can show they are wrong.

As I keep pointing out, what Roger claims happened to the Z film is a theory, and that speculation is ALWAYS used in theories. Roger, if you want to stop Jeremy from pointing out the parts of your theory that are speculative, you could try prefacing each of those parts by saying "it could be," "I believe that," or some such thing.

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.

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.

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?

Because I've never seen Horne make an intentional mistake. For the record, none of this is inconsistent what I wrote in the post Pat is replying to. He's just ragging on Horne. 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.

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

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.)

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.

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

That wasn't your first drawing was it??

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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: 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.

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.

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

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

I thought she was a great candidate.

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.

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?

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.

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: 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. 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.