Sandy Larsen

[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.

Did you see that? I just proved once again that James Jenkins placed the gaping wound on the back of the head, not the top. The proof is very easy to do. Pat's claim is a demonstrable falsehood. It is against forum rules to post demonstrable falsehoods... unless you're a prominent researcher. A moderator gets punished if the dare penalize a prominent researcher. This is all my opinion.

Pat Speer has said repeatedly that James Jenkins placed the gaping head wound on the top of the head, not on the back like most witnesses did. And he has said repeatedly that Jenkins actually told this to him personally. In person, I believe. I recalled this upon reading the following comment that Pat posted recently: Pat and his followers are the only people on earth who know and believe this. Everybody else knows that Jenkins has always placed the wound on the back of the head. So I find it very odd that the only person in the whole world Jenkins tells otherwise is Pat. I decided to buy James Jenkins' 2018 book At the Cold Shoulder of History because Pat likes to get his James Jenkins information from it. I wanted to see Jenkins' words for myself. The message that he tells everybody... except apparently for Pat Spear. I wasn't surprised what I discovered. There are numerous things I could quote from the book to make my case. But I think that these two things say it well: On page 121 of his Kindle book Jenkins writes: 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. On page 129 he writes: This is the wound drawing that Dr. McClelland made to illustrate the wound he saw at Parkland in 1963. This closely matches the wound that I saw after the scalp was retracted from the skull. That's the back of the head, folks.

But there is an overwhelming amount of corroborating circumstantial evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. That it is corroborating makes it more valuable than a single piece of physical evidence. Nearly every witness (approximately 40 of them) said they saw the gaping wound on the back of the head. Even if every one of them was wrong (which is what anti-alterationists believe), what are the odds that all 40 would agree on a wound location? Close to zero! That would be like like throwing, say, 45 coins and having 40 of them come up heads. And yet the witnesses DID agree on a location! The back of the head! How is that possible? The only possible way 40 witnesses could agree on the same location is if they were all right. Having said that, I will note that Tom is wrong in what I quoted of him above. There actually IS physical evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. The logarithmic scan of the film reveals an artificially darkened patch on the back of JFK's head. Which is quite valid proof that the film was altered. Though the circumstantial proof I described above is actually stronger.

Martin, Stick with it. What you are seeing right now is something that almost never happens. A couple weeks ago a fairly new member opened a thread and in it exposed a lie being made by a prominent researcher. Actually the prominent researcher had been lying about it for a long time, possibly decades. It is against forum rules to post "demonstrable falsehoods." As a moderator, I gave the researcher an opportunity to correct the lie. He refused. I suggest that he simple qualify his falsehood with something like, "It is my belief that..." which would make his statement true. He refused again, and so I penalized him with a few day's suspension from posting. Next thing I know, a number of his followers objected and turned against me, two of whom I had to penalize as well. (Minor penalties.) Even a co-moderator turned against me and he posted crazy stuff about me. (He claimed I was under the control of the member who brought the charge against the prominent researcher.) What he said was unfounded, uncalled for, and public! So I penalized him too! What I've learned from this is that forum rules are only for average forum members, not prominent ones. I have now lost my moderator status. Now here I am, having to defend myself from the charges of the worst rules-violators who are exacting revenge on me for having penalized them in the past. But, as I said, this will blow over and things will be fine again. Good luck to you.

Jean Paul's remarks were disrespectful to the moderator. It appears that somebody has deleted that post, so I can't defend myself on it. In Greg Doudna's case, he repeatedly lied. Here is his post with my comments in red: I suppose Pat Speer, probably one of the top ten most productive researchers in America challenging the Warren Commission's version of the JFK assassination of long-time standing, won't be talking much more on this forum about any tangential shot interpretation. Last night Sandy deleted him from this forum. That's a lie. I merely suspended his posting privileges for a few days. For holding views which the same moderator who deleted him determined on his sole sayso had been "shown wrong" and therefore could not permissably continue to be be expressed. That's a lie. Hard evidence showed that Pat had distorted the evidence in a way as to make it a appear the James Jenkins said something that he didn't say... that the wound was at the top of the head. Both Keven and I showed Pat that Jenkins never said that, and in fact said the wound was on the back of the head. I gave Pat the opportunity to rephrase what he said so as to make it factual. But Pat refused. And that was just one of Pat's lies. The other of his lies was this: Pat claimed that Keven Hofeling AGREED that Jenkins placed the hole on top of the head. Which of course is a ridiculous notion. In some old days I realized early on that in groups or movements which challenge fundamental status quos, there are ways and means by which those status quos can neutralize anyone who is effective. Pat Speer has been effective. Someone came on this forum with a vendetta and neutralized him. Not content to show Pat wrong through posted or published argument, the traditional manner of doing things. That's a lie. Keven Hofeling posted voluminous arguments proving his case. But crush him, blacken his name, silence him from saying what he thinks. That's a lie. Neither Keven nor I did anything to try to silence Pat from saying what he thinks. As a matter of fact, I encouraged Pat to state that "he thinks" that Jenkins placed the wound on the top of the head. Because that would have been the truth and there would be no penalty. But Pat refused. The newcomer had no known previous history with the JFK assassination topic. Shows up out of nowhere. Offers no known original argument or analysis of his own. That's a lie. Keven effectively and convincingly argued that what Pat was saying was a lie. He left no doubt on that. Has published nothing on the JFK assassination. Just advocacy of a certain existing interpretation... That's a lie. Keven provided hard evidence for which no interpretation could be or need be made. ...used as a club and to bludgeon in the service of the only apparent discernible objective: a massive sustained attack on targeted Pat Speer with no letup or pause, over and over and over and over, until victory. Repetition of talking points and memes and personal attacks. Just took him out. (Victory.) Those are the facts. Those are several lies.

Not everyone. But then, they let me get away with murder in this joint. Tom, of course, is wrong regarding why I penalized those two members. I had good cause to penalize both. The reason you weren't penalized Cliff is because you didn't break any rules. Quite the contrary, you made some useful observations.

Well, if Pat Speer states a lie... then that's okay. That's what I now know well.

When you make accusations, then yes, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise your words are empty. Keven did prove it. You just didn't read the proof. It doesn't matter one bit where the back of the head ends and the top begins. In fact, is doesn't even matter whether the hole was on the back, on the top, or nowhere at all. Because that is not what is being challenged. What is being challenged is WHERE JAMES JENKINS PLACED THE HOLE. And the truth is that he placed it on the back. Just like almost every other witness did. The very reason Mark Knight and I disagree on this matter is that he cannot see the distinction between "where the hole was" and "where did Jenkins say the hole was." Maybe you can't either. Jenkins statements are NOT inconsistent or ambiguous. I watched the video from which Pat's stills came from and I transcribed the portions where Jenkins spoke about the large hole on the head. Naturally Pat didn't include these on his website. There are actually two portions. In the first one, Jenkins describes the hole in the scalp that was left after the mortician had reconstructed the head. He said that the hole in the scalp was about the size of a silver dollar and it was located on the back of the head. In the other portion of the video, he goes back to the time when he first saw the wounds. He said that they removed the towels and he saw a wound the size of a fist. He said that it looked close to what the famous McClelland drawing shows. And that, of course, is with a very large wound on the back of the head. Speaking of drawings... have you even bothered to look at the drawing of the wound made by James Jenkins? Well the wound's clearly on the back there as well. Oh, the wound IS so large that it does extend up high near the top. But to thereby claim that the wound was at the top would still be a lie... a lie by omission. (Look it up.) An honest person would say it was on the back of the head, extending to the top. Something like that. You're alleging that Keven broke the rules. Prove it! Why didn't you report these alleged rules earlier? Why did nobody report them? Oh I know why... <light bulb!> it's because he didn't break the rules!