Sandy Larsen

On 4/14/2024 at 6:46 AM, Michael Kalin said:

Juvenile sarcasm? Not so -- "HMFIC" would have been juvenile sarcasm.

Maybe I should have qualified my "do whatever you want" comment with "as long as it doesn't break forum rules."

You shouldn't have posted that.

1 hour ago, Mark Ulrik said:

I'm just a simple country boy, so please bear with me. These "facts" are what others might call ideas or views, right?

Not in general.

Believe it or not, we have a set of facts and a set of opposing non-facts. (Sometimes more than one opposing non-fact for a given fact.) And which one a given person believes is the real fact will largely depend upon his or her political leanings.

This has long been the case to some extent, but became extremely common when Donald Trump was elected President in 2016. Trump is famous for referring to any news he doesn't care for as "fake news." Of course, if you're not a Trump follower, you will call it what it is... news, not fake news. Some people refer to the truly-fake news as MAGA news.

I use the word "facts" instead of "news " because this phenomenon extends beyond what might be reported in the news.

Having said that...

Certainly there is some fake news reported by the mainstream media. But I, like many others, believe that the news from these sources is far more reliable than news from alternative news sources, most of which have a far-right bias.

Here is a simple example:

The mainstream media reports that the reason Donald Trump has four criminal indictments against him is because the evidence point to his being guilty. In contrast, MAGA news sites report that Donald Trump is the victim of false indictments because Democrats have weaponized the Justice Department against him in order to keep him from being elected.

8 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Because the 56 years thread is locked, I can't edit out attachments.  Anyway around this?

Cliff,

Check out this new Forum Tip & Trick I just posted:

Special Instructions for Deleting Photos in Locked Threads

The procedure for deleting photos in a locked thread differs from the standard procedure.

Once a member has been granted permissions to delete photos in locked threads, he should follow these instructions for deleting those photos:

1. Navigate to the My Attachments page of the website. (This is done by clicking My Attachments in the main menu.)
2. To the right of each attached photo is a little square check box. Check this box for each photo in the locked thread that you'd like to delete.
3. Upon checking one or more check boxes, a black menu will appear at the bottom of the window. Click the trashcan in the menu to delete all the selected photos.
4. Once you are finished deleting locked photos, contact the Administrator again and notify him of this fact, so that he can remove from your account permissions to delete locked photos.

If you find you cannot delete photos and free up attachment space because they are posted on a locked thread, do the following:

Contact an Administrative Staff member and ask him to follow instructions in the (hidden) post below in order to temporarily grant you permissions to remove photos from locked threads. (Only administrators can see that post.)

Once you have been granted permissions, follow the instructions in the second post of this thread.

Once you are finished deleting locked photos, contact the administrator again and let them know you are finished. He will remove your temporary permissions.

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

"For those who believe mainstream contemporary facts."  I find that off-putting.

4 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Ok, That's Sandy's definition. I would have worded it differently.

In the new system, I would word the Coolers as follows:

Either:

WATER COOLER - MAINSTREAM  (For those who believe mainstream contemporary facts.)

WATER COOLER - MAGA  (For those who believe alternative facts.)

WATER COOLER - MAINSTREAM vs MAGA  (For those who want to challenge the other side.)

Or:

WATER COOLER - MAINSTREAM  (For those who believe mainstream contemporary facts.)

WATER COOLER - ALTERNATIVE  (For those who believe alternative (e.g. MAGA) facts.)

WATER COOLER - MAINSTREAM vs ALTERNATIVE  (For those who want to challenge the other side.)

How would you guys word them?

(Following is a copy of my OP that members might have missed.)

Kirk Galloway has suggested that the Water Cooler threads be moved back to this -- the JFK Assassination Debate -- forum. (That's not exactly his idea, but it is the only way his idea can be achieved.) They currently reside outside this forum, near the Political Discussions forum.

Kirk's goal is to make it easy to see if there is a new post to read, and to make it a bit quicker to navigate to.

William Niederhut reminisces how interesting the old "56 Year" was when many forum members were participating. Unfortunately that thread met its demise when it was -- in some members' opinions -- spammed by individuals who believe in "alternate news." It was ultimately closed from further posts due to endless bickering related to that issue.

I later opened up the Water Cooler threads in an effort to restore the "56 Year" thread general discussion. I segregated the Cooler by "news type belief" (mainstream vs. alternate vs. both ) to satisfy the "spam" averse members and to keep the peace.

Generally speaking, this has worked out well for mainstream news believers. For some reason, alternate news believers don't post there.

The downsides of the Water Coolers are what Kirk and William have expressed concern about, as noted above:

1. More difficult to use.
2. Loss of participation.

I am considering the following solution to these problems: Move the Water Cooler threads to this forum, but keep them segregated. Members would be allowed to post on any topic they choose, as long as their post didn't cross the news-type line of segregation. (Posting to the "both types" Cooler would allow any news-type post.)

Doing this would definitely satisfy Kirk's desire of making it easy to see when there is a new post, and making it easier to navigate to. But I don't know if it would increase participation. The latter, in my opinion, would be of greater value than the former.

I am opening this topic up to discussion. Any suggestions? What can be done to increase participation?

12 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Free to do whatever I want? Bless my soul, a gracious straw boss!

Yep, you are free to do whatever you want. Even engage in juvenile sarcasm, if that trips your trigger.

8 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

On 4/10/2024 at 1:43 PM, Matt Allison said:

Which means shortly thereafter Donald Trump will claim "This wouldn't have happened if I was still President."

8 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Great call!

19 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

So you're saying that would make it too accessible for our own good?

I'm not making a judgement call at all. I'm just saying that doing what you want will result in what we had in the "56 years" thread. I recall that a number of posters in that thread hated what was going on with it.

If you guys want it back the way it was  before, I will consider doing that and will see if I can get the change approved by the other mods.

Another possibility is to continue having segregated water cooler threads and pin all three at the top of the JFKA forum. The downside to this is that I will have no place to inform members of the posting rules.

19 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Sandy Do you and @W. Niederhut want to return to the days of the "56 years" thread?

Well sure. I'm a big boy.

Noted.

19 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

IMO, that thread  screw up was largely instigated by a very small clique, and one person in particular.

Nevertheless, the small clique did result in consternation for several members.

19 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

It's not for the idea of getting more forum eyeballs, if you think that's harmful. It's just ease of use, not just for W.and I. but everybody who uses it. Maybe even including you!

Yes, I understand.

Kirk Galloway has suggested that the Water Cooler threads be moved back to this -- the JFK Assassination Debate -- forum. (That's not exactly his idea, but it is the only way his idea can be achieved.) They currently reside outside this forum, near the Political Discussions forum.

59 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

It would be wise to jettison the blackbox labeled "Mexico City shenanigans," a fatuous attempt to hide the complexity & confusion by stuffing in choice items while classifying the rest as nugatory.

If I come across new information that I cannot explain with my current theory, or an appropriately adjusted theory, then I will consider doing just that.

In the meantime, I find the phrase "Mexico City shenanigans" to be a useful way of pithily referring to what took place there and what supposedly took place there for the purposes of the plotters. (After all, I am not writing a book or dissertation.)

But you are free to do whatever you want.

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Neither of those "corrections" convey what I meant. I've revised my original post to make it more clear.

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

Would have been better had you not substantively edited posts, the content of which is material to the thread.  Punctuation and spellings are one thing; self-serving revision something else.

As an Admin here, wouldn't you agree?

You are harassing me because I disagreed with you. That is what I see as an Admin .

P.S. And I didn't "substantively" edit my post. I made a minor clarification.

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay. But I never said you did add it.

Here we go.  So, who, according to you, did "add it" -- your words?  

I never said anybody in particular added the mole hunt. And it doesn't matter to me who added it because I don't believe its addition is necessary or useful.

38 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Fixed it, then.

Quote 1: "My theory explaining the multiple impersonations of Oswald and the disinformation transmitted in the Oct. 10 cables leaves no room for a mole hunt theory. (Note that my theory is shared by others, including the esteemed Peter Dale Scott.)" [Emphasis added.]

 

Quote 2 (revised): "My theory explaining the multiple impersonations of Oswald leaves no room for a mole hunt theory. (Note that my theory is NOT shared by others, including the esteemed Peter Dale Scott.)"

Neither of those "corrections" accurately convey what I meant. I've revised my original post to make it more clear.

4 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The whole thing makes perfect sense to me without adding any other agency and without adding a mole hunt.

4 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

I did not "add" the mole-hunt theory.

Okay. But I never said you did add it.

2 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

In agreement with Matt Cloud: the question should be "whose spy?" [comment 3/30/24]

I personally don't see any reason to think there was any other intelligence agency involved in the whole Mexico City affair, other than the CIA. The whole thing makes perfect sense to me without adding any other agency and without adding a mole hunt.

You guys, of course, can believe whatever you want.

2 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

On 3/31/2024 at 12:55 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

My theory explaining the multiple impersonations of Oswald and the disinformation transmitted in the Oct. 10 cables leaves no room for a mole hunt theory. (Note that my theory is shared by others, including the esteemed Peter Dale Scott.)

2 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Peter Dale Scott may have shared the disinformation theory, but he also saw plenty of room for a molehunt theory.

Apparently PDS did NOT believe the same disinformation theory that I (and others, like Jim Hargrove) believe. We believe that the purpose of the disinformation in the Oct. 10 cables was to lower Oswald's profile so that he wouldn't be perceived as a potential threat to JFK in Nov. 1963. In contrast, PDS apparently believes that the purpose of the Oct. 10 disinformation was to introduce marked cards to be used to sniff out a mole.

When I said that PDS shared the same theory as mine, I wasn't referring to the theory explaining the Oct. 10 disinformation. I was referring to the main theory I explained in the post that you (Michael Kalin) replied to. The theory explaining all the Mexico City shenanigans designed to make it look like Oswald was arranging to kill Kennedy for Cuba and Russia. PDS refers to this as Phase 1 / Phase 2 in his paper on it.

(Phase 1 is where it looks like Cuba and Russian conspired with Oswald to kill Kennedy, whereas Phase 2 is where it looks like Oswald is a lone gunman.)

30 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

You really should just go and listen to the actual audio for yourself.

What would be the point? I know it's been altered.

40 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

[Markham] very plainly states that the number two man was the man she saw shoot the policeman.  Oswald was the number two man.

And immediate afterword she said:

Mrs. Markham: I asked- I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cool chills just run over me.

So she wasn't sure after all. Which isn't surprising given that she denied it was Oswald 15 times.

We both know that the DPD designed the lineup to make it look like Oswald was the one in custody for the crime.

The moderators can't emphasize enough how important it is to "stay clean" for a while (a week or two) after being penalized.The reason is because penalties rise exponentially every time a new warning is issued to a given member during the "stay clean" period.

Suppose a member is given a 10-point warning for cussing at another member. The first 10 points will cost the member one day of posting privileges. The second 10 points will cost 2 days. Then 4, then 8. The penalty doubles every time.

The reason I bring this up now is because one member physically threatened another member about a week ago and got a 30 point warning, which resulted in a 4-day penalty. Well, that same member received a much less severe 10 point warning today for tip-toeing around his prior threat. Even though the number of warning points issued this time were much smaller, he ended up with an 8-day penalty. Had he waited for a few more days before acting up again, he would have received just a 1-day penalty.

The penalty system is designed this way so that it is not too harsh for single events, even if quite disruptive (some members used to be banned immediately for such events), while at the same time providing incentive to cool off.

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

No one involved in the autopsy called Perry during the autopsy. They should have but they didn't. The official story is that Humes--by his lonesome--called Perry the next morning.

Well then that settles it... that surely must be true!

Like the single bullet theory... that surely must be true too!

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It has been shown in numerous ways that the original DPD Dictabelts were recreated for the WC with false times that are ~9 minutes later than reality.  To give Oswald more time to get to the Tippit site.

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Here's one example:  T.F. Bowley was driving west on 10th Street and arrived a few minutes after the shooting. He looked at his watch--the time was 1:10 PM.  An original DPD police transcript, found in the National Archives, lists the time of Bowley's call  to the police as 1:10 PM.  The original DPD transcript (CE 705) shows the report of Tippit's murder by Bowley at 1:10 PM. The FBI transcript, (CE 1974) prepared in August, 1964, lists the reporting time of Tippit's murder by Bowley at 1:19 PM--nine minutes later

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Listen to the tapes and follow the timestamps given by the dispatcher.  The dispatcher never says 1:10.

LOL, oh really? The dispatcher never says 1:10?

Lookie here:

Disp 10-4 603 and 602, 1:10 p .m .
6C2 What's that address on Jefferson?
Disp 501 East 10th .
85 85 out .
19 19 .
Disp 19 .
19, Give me the correct address on the shooting .
Dizp 501 East 10th .
105 105 .
602 602 Code 6
Unknown Was 519 E . Jefferson correct?
Disp We have 2 locations, 501 E . Jefferson and 501 E . 10th.
19, are you enroute?
Uknown This is an officer
19 to-4 .
19 19 is enroute .
Disp 10-4, 19.
605 605 Code 5 .
Disp 10-4, 605, 1:10.
Disp 85 .
602 602 .
Disp 85 . . . .
85, 85 .
Disp The subject's running west on Jefferson from the location.
85 10-4 .
Disp No physical description .
Citizen [Bowley] hello, hello, hello . . . .
602 602 . . .
Citizen [Bowley] . . . . from out here on 10th Street, 300 block . This police
officer's just shot . I think he's dead .
Disp 10-4, we have the information . The Citizen using the
radio, remain off the radio now .
 

From p. 408 and 409 of CE-705:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_705.pdf

The dispatcher says it's 1:10 PM twice, just before Bowley gets on the radio! This is precisely the time that Bowley says he made the radio call!

As I said, the Dictabelt and transcript were altered to show a later time -- about 9 minutes later -- to give Oswald more time to get there to supposedly shoot Tippit. But the coverup artists made a mistake and didn't change this 1:10 PM time. The error was caught later and attempts made to correct it, but it was too late to cover all their tracks!

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yep, 1:06 PM:

Mrs. Margie Higgins, who lived at 417 East 10th St. was watching television and later told reporters, "Well, I was watching the news on television and for some reason the announcer turned and looked at the clock and said the time was six minutes after one (1:06 PM). At that point I heard the shots."

 

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

First, what reporters did Higgins say this to?  Do you have footage of it?  I bet you don't.  This supposed claim by Higgins came from a very questionable researcher decades later.

The person I got that story from was a little loose in his characterization of the Higgins interview. The "reporters" he spoke of was actually researcher Barry Ernest. The quote is from an unplanned interview he had with Higgins, which he recorded in his book.

Higgins had remembered the time of the shooting after all those years because she heard the 1:16 PM time reported on the news in 1963 and she realized that the real time was ten minutes prior. She told Ernest, "I'd bet my life" on that time.

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

Second, there was no moment in any of the broadcasts where the announcer looks at a clock and notes the time as being 1:06.  Simply didn't happen.

Oh my gosh, how old are you, Bill?

Television was funny back then, with an awful lot of live broadcasts featuring absolute amateurs. I remember one local TV show called "Dialing for Dollars" where the host would randomly pick a phone number, call it, wait for six rings to pass, and then count to ten to give the household more time to answer the phone. If a person did answer, the host would ask a question. The person would win some amount of money if they got the answer right.

It was all very corny. I just looked it up in Wikipedia and was surprised to find an article on it. Our local Dialing for Dollars set looked a lot like the one on the left here:

It's not at all surprising that a live host back then would give out the time of day.

45 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yep... 1:06 PM: 

Helen Markham had just arrived at the northwest corner of 10th & Patton, en route to catch the city bus one block south at Jefferson & Patton (at 1:15 PM). She told the Warren Commission it was "6 or 7 minutes after 1  [1:06 or 1:07 PM]"

45 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

She also told the Warren Commission that Oswald was the man she saw shoot the police man.

What?? Markham told the Warren Commission FIFTEEN times that Oswald wasn't the man who she saw shoot Tippit!

Mr. Ball: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?

Mrs. Markham: Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Mrs. Markham: No, sir.

Mr. Ball: You did not? Did you see anybody - I have asked you this question before - did you recognize anybody from their face?

Mrs. Markham: From their face, no.

Mr. Ball: Did you identify anybody in these four people?

Mrs. Markham: I didn't know nobody.

Mr. Ball: I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?

Mrs. Markham: No, I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

Mr. Ball: No one of the four?

Mrs. Markham: No one of them.

Mr. Ball: No one of all four?

Mrs. Markham: No, sir.

Mr. Ball: Was there a number two man in there?

Mrs. Markham: Number two is the one I picked.<:f>

Mr. Ball: Well, I though you just told me that you hadn't-

Mrs. Markham: I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.

Mr. Ball: No, I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there-

Mrs. Markham: Number two.

Mr. Ball: What did you say when you saw number two?

Mrs. Markham: Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.

Mr. Ball: What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?

Mrs. Markham: Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.

Mr. Ball: You recognized him from his appearance?

Mrs. Markham: I asked- I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cool chills just run over me.

o
o
o

Mr. BALL. I have two Commission Exhibits, 535 and 533. I will show them to you, Mrs. Markham, and I will ask you if you have ever seen the man who is pictured there, whose picture is shown on these two exhibits.

Mrs. MARKHAM. No.

Mr. BALL. Never have seen him before. Do you think he might have been one of the men you talked to before?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, no.

Mr. BALL. They are pictures of the same man.

Mrs. MARKHAM. No.

Mr. DULLES. We are inquiring whether you had ever seen him after the assassination.

Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I know. No, not this man. This man I have never seen. I have never seen this man in my life.

Mr. BALL. I have no further questions.

Mr. DULLES. Do you know who he is?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, I don’t. It is just a picture of a man. I don’t know him.

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Ball, do you have any further questions?

Mr. BALL. No further questions