Sandy Larsen

Peter Dale Scott's "Phase 1 / Phase 2" theory explains the need for the above actions. According to PDS, the CIA plotters used the Mexico City trip to make it appear that Oswald had contracted with the Cubans and Russians to kill Kennedy. One witness said he saw Oswald paid $6500 in the Cuban Consulate for the hit. Of course, that was just one of the fake statements paid for by the CIA to incriminate both Oswald and the Cubans/Russians. PDS calls this Phase 1 of the plot, its purpose being to create a pretext for war with either Cuba or Russia. The CIA also created an alternative scenario where Oswald acted on his own and had nothing to do with Cuba and Russia. PDS calls this Phase 2. The purpose of Phase 2 was to provide a ready-made suspect just in case something went wrong with Phase 1. For example, in case the new president LBJ wasn't interested in invading Cuba or a first nuclear strike on Russia -- the two things the JCS wanted BTW. Something did go wrong and Phase 2 was scrapped. Phase 1 kicked in and gave the Feds a culprit... Lee Harvey Oswald. Phase 1 did its job and kept the Feds from investigating any further, which could have otherwise led to their discovering the CIA was behind the assassination. Having explained Phase 1 / Phase 2 ... It was essential that the CIA plotters make Phase 2 a viable solution to the crime, just in case that route prevailed. The "best evidence" needed to support a lone gunman culprit, and so that evidence needed to be controlled by the CIA. Which is why the CIA controlled the autopsy, the autopsy photos, and any film that had a great view of the head shots... which was the Z film. Both the Z film and the autopsy were altered right away in order to move the wound from off the back of the head. The autopsy photos were altered later on. (No rush was necessary for them.) Unfortunately for the CIA plotters and fortunately for us, alterations to the autopsy and autopsy photos don't match those on the Z film. If you watch the Z film carefully, you will see that a huge chunk of Kennedy's head centered on his right temple were blasted away. Compare that to the autopsy photos that have the temple intact. And compare to the autopsy, which has the blowout wound further to the back, above the right ear. Then, of course, is the fact that nearly every witness to the gaping wound (about 45 of them) said that it was on the back of the head. And none of them saw the damage depicted on the Z film.

OMG, those evil, evil people!

Gee, I wonder why the author of that hit piece on Kennedy chose to paraphrase what I highlighted in red rather than directly quoting her. Could it be that it gave him a lot of freedom in the words he put into her mouth? So he has her saying what he wants her to say? A typical gossip rag tactic.

From the article: It’s not the first time Russia has sent its warships to the Caribbean, but this week’s visit follows Putin’s warning that Moscow could respond to Ukraine’s Western allies allowing Kyiv to use their weapons to strike targets in Russia by giving similar weapons to adversaries of the West worldwide. If I were Biden, I would consider threatening to bomb any weapons being unloaded from Russian ships on Caribbean countries.

Bill, I see that Ron Bulman is now a moderator. (Though not admin like before.) He might do this for you. On the other hand, he might be afraid to, after seeing what happened to me.

Bill, Yes, it is indeed a violation of forum rules to post false information. However, last week I learned the hard way that prominent researchers are exempt from the rule. At least Pat Speer is. He did post two lies and he wouldn't correct them, so I penalized him. The site owner, Jame Gordon, relieved me of my moderator duties as a result. For which Pats bootlickers are pleased. As I demonstrated with Pat, I don't play favorites. And so I would have done the same for you regardless of the fact that you are an LNer. Had you proven that Gil's information was wrong, and had he refused to correct it, I would have penalized him for the violation. I don't know if the remaining moderator, Mark Knight, would do the same for you. But just be forewarned that Mark has a hard time distinguishing between "a difference of opinion" and "a difference in truth." Which is also something I found out the hard way.

Kirk, I think you PM box is full.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Well, it appears you might be right about Mark Knight using your last name against you. I can't say for sure because it looks like you're just going from memory. But I certainly didn't did use your last name. That's just not something I do. But I do recall making an observation like what you describe, comparing your politics to Ben Cole's. The reason being that, on the surface his and yours seem very much the same with Trump/MAGA like qualities. I said something like, Matthew is MAGA but Ben only wants to be. He can't because he doesn't like Trump. What I said was meant to be in jest.

What? There is absolutely no way I would question someone just because their name is somehow identified with a political group or politician. And I'm pretty sure the same goes for Mark as well. Fact is, I never knew where Mark fit on the political spectrum while I was working with him. Same with Ron and and Kathy.

If nobody cares, then why do keep asking me?

If Horne posted that here on the forum, and claimed that Robinson had said those things, and I were still a moderator, I would penalize him if he refused to correct his claim.

It's a lot easier to accurately point to the location on another head, rather than your own, given that you have to do the latter by feel. So Jenkins in the red shirt is more faithfully pointing to where the wound was, IMO. Here are our differences: You conflate the dollar-sized wound with the fist-sized wound. In contrast, I say the fist-sized wound was what Jenkins saw when they first took the towel off Kennedy's head. The dollar-sized hole is what he saw after the mortician finished reassembling the head and stretched the scalp as much as possible to cover the wound. I didn't just make that up. That is what Jenkins said in the 1991 video, and in his 2018 book. You say that the fist sized-hole was actually fragment(s) that fell to the table when the scalp was reflected. In contrast, I say that the fist-sized hole was missing both skull bone and scalp. But that it was difficult to determine the extent of the wound due to all the blood and matted hair. It actually looked like the back part of Kennedy's head was blown off. However, once the scalp was reflected, Jenkins could see that it was a smaller wound... the size of a fist. I didn't just make that up. That is what Jenkins said in the 1991 video, and in his 2018 book. You say that Jenkins 'story changed, and that you thought he was influenced by... Chessar I believe you said. In contrast, I say that Jenkins' story has remained remarkably the same over the decades. I didn't just make that up. I compared what Jenkins said in the 1991 video to what he wrote in his 2018 book. They are virtually the same.

Kirk, Which would have looked better for Biden's presidential bid? Providing more arms to Israel, or providing less? I ask because, though a lot of Democrats care about civilian casualties, there are those who are highly pro-Israeli. I have pro-Israeli friends who are angry with Biden for slowing the war down. They say they care about the Gazans, but really they hate Hamas and love Israel more.

@Kirk Gallaway FWIW, I just sent a test message to W. and it worked. Apparently it is fixed. @Ron Bulman Ron, your PM box is full. It's probably over it's limit since your allotment was reduced. I just had that same problem and at first it appeared I couldn't delete messages. But I did find a way to delete them. Let me know if you need help.

Nah, I just did some web searching. Check this page out: https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/kennedy-casket-conspiracy/ Search the page for Robinson.

All right, I made a little mistake. I said you got the video frame from Laws book, when in reality both you and Law got your frames from the video. But it makes no difference. You cherry-picked from the video, choosing the frame where Jenkins is pointing nearest the top of the head. We know this because Law printed three frames from the video and Jenkins is pointing quite low in one of them. After cherry-picking that frame from the video, you made it darker for some reason. Here is is: Jenkins is pointing near the top of the head. In the normal, non-darkened version of the frame, you can see that his fingertip isn't quite at the top of his head. Without having the video, we have no sound to listen to and know what Jenkins is saying. So we don't know why he's pointing there. What we do know is that there is no record of Jenkins ever saying there was a wound at the top of the head. Though we do have plenty of transcripts and videos where he said there was a gaping wound on the back of the head, and that it is similar to the wound shown in McClelland's drawing. This is true both now (we know from his 2018 book) and long ago (we know from a 1991 video). Yes, that is consistently where Jenkins placed the gaping wound... today and forty years ago! I don't rely on Jenkins' 2018 book. I used it to show that he said the same thing in 2018 as he did in 1991. The guy in the red shirt needs to move his finger a little to the right.

Of course I'm not kidding. I'm not at all familiar with any Robinson statements regarding the body or autopsy being moved around. So when I read that Pat had a problem with what Horne wrote, I focused on what Horne wrote compared to what Robinson had said in his testimony. They looked consistent to me, though I wondered how Horne could conclude what he did from what Robinson said, given how cryptic it is. I figured Horne must know something else. But yeah, after re-reading the HSCA question, I see what the problem is. I checked further into this and discovered that Horne is reportedly suspicious of those statements of Robinson's recorded in the transcript... because parentheses and ellipses aren't things you see in transcripts. So he reportedly set about to get the original audio recording of the HSCA interview to see what Robinson actually said. But couldn't get it.

Pat, I don't understand your complaint against Horne. What he wrote in 2010 seems to be consistent with Robinson's HSCA testimony that you posted. Please explain what Horne did wrong, as you see it.

Dear readers, (And Pat... if he will listen to reason. But he probably won't.) What Pat is saying here is that Jenkins did indeed point to a hole in the rear of the head. Except that the hole only became present when the scalp was reflected (peeled back) and fragmented bone from the back of the skull fell to the table. Yet again Pat is wrong. The truth is that both the scalp and skull fragments were missing from the back of the head, according to Jenkins. But that it was difficult to tell the extent of the wound till after the scalp was reflected. Here are Jenkins' exact words from his 2018 book: 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. Pat had to make up the story about the skull fragments falling to the table, because otherwise he'd be admitting that Jenkins placed the gaping wound on the back of the head.

Yes, you took that video frame from Law's book. So Law is the one who picked it. BUT... Law printed THREE related frames of the video for his book. And YOU cherry-picked the one that shows Jenkins pointing closest to the top of his head! Regardless, this video frame without any sound and no transcript is NOT evidence of any kind the Jenkins placed the wound at the top of the head. As I have shown, Jenkins ALWAYS said the gaping wound was at the back of the head. And you have nothing to show otherwise. Wow... just wow! I post the Jenkins frame, pointing out that you had cherry picked it to suit your needs... and you say therefore I have conceded your point! You have a lot of nerve to make such a ridiculous claim! (I'd penalize you for lying again, if I could! Though, of course, I'd give you a chance to correct it first. Like I did last time.)

BTW Pat, Jenkins didn't change the size of the wound. The McClelland-sized wound is what he saw when the head was first unwrapped. Later the morticians put the head back together again, used that rubber dam in the back to stop fluid leakage, and stretched the scalp as much as they could to cover the rubber dam. That left a remaining hole that Jenkins said was the size of a silver dollar. I can easily prove that what I'm saying is true. Both the large and the small hole description are in that 1991 Livingstone video which I partially transcribed. And both are in his 2018 book.

That's a cute trick that you did... cherry pick a frame from a video where Jenkins is pointing nearest the top of his head. Now let me listen to the video so I can hear what Jenkins is actually saying. And so I can see where else he points.

First, the issue I raise has nothing to do with Horne. So quit deflecting over to him. So, you say that Jenkins became a back-of-the-head man only recently. Well, if that is true, then how do you explain the fact that he was a back-of-the-head man a long time ago too... and in fact has always been a back-of-the-head man? Here's a drawing Jenkins did for the HSCA: Back of the head. Later, Jenkins told David Lifton, "I would say that parietal and occipital section on the right side of the head--it was a large gaping area...It had just been crushed, and kind of blown apart, toward the rear." When Lifton told Jenkins that photographs showed that the back of the head was essentially intact, except for a small bullet entry wound at the top, he responded, "That's not possible, That is totally--you know, there's no possible way. Okay? It's not possible." In 1991 Jenkins told Livingstone, "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." So even back in 1991, Jenkins was saying that the wound he saw was like the one in Dr. McClelland's drawing. Just as I said, James Jenkins has ALWAYS been a back-of-the-head guy. Except, apparently, when he is talking to you.