Sandy Larsen

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?

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]