Sandy Larsen

Problem is, Joe, Pat cherry-picked a frame from his interview where his fingers were nearest the top of his head. Here are other frames from the interview: (ignore the top photo) Also, look at the drawing James Jenkins did for the HSCA:

Okay, so you can't produce a single transcript or video where James Jenkins says the wound is on the top of the head. But you mention a transcript in William Law's book. Well here it is, along with the frame (bottom image) from the video where he said it: This is a photocopy from his book. Here is the full quote, also from the book: "I would say that if you take your hand and you put the heel of your thumb behind your ear, that would cover the basic part of the wound with the open hole approximately in that area." The "heel of your thumb" is the fleshy part between the thumb and the palm. If you place that behind your right ear, that is where the wound was according to Jenkins. That, Pat, is not the top of the head. That is the back of the head.

Are you asking me what I think Pat's objective is for lying? It is my opinion that -- upon looking at the evidence -- you are not such a fool as to believe there is any interpretation to have. Jenkins made it clear there was a large hole on the back of the head. So I therefore believe you were merely bootlicking. I, of course, could be wrong about that.

Keven has presented multiple instances of James Jenkins saying there was a large hole on the back of JFK's head. Show me one transcript or one video where James Jenkins said that the hole was on the top of the head.

I see his fingers point to the top of his head. I don't hear the words, "the hole was here" coming out of his mouth.

Pat, You have posted TWO lies in this thread, repeated multiple times, as quoted here: This sentence has one lie: This sentence has two lies: This sentence has two lies: This sentence has one lie: If I penalize you for both these lies, you will be issued 20 penalty points. In addition, you will receive another 20 points because another member (Keven) has asked you to remove these forum violations. The following is a table showing how many days of posting privileges a member loses based on their accumulated penalty points: 10 Points = 1 day 20 Points = 2 days 30 Points = 4 days 40 Points = 8 days Please remove these lies ASAP to save yourself from being penalized. Note that, should you restate what you've said in a way that indicates they are your interpretation or your opinion, doing so would effectively change your lies to factual statements, given that you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe... regardless of how intellectually dishonest it may be.

You shouldn't call someone a liar. But you can say someone lied about something specific if it has been proven they lied. It looks to me like Keven is on a crusade to get Pat to quit lying. But your sarcastic "alterationist echo chamber" comment probably explains why you are willing to put up with Pat Speer lies regarding the medical evidence. Lying is a bad thing.

Pat, The topic of this thread is that you are telling a lie about what James Jenkins said. What happens, contrary to what you are saying (which I quote above), is that Keven presents his case that you are lying, and rather than defend yourself, you change the topic to James Jenkins supposedly disagreeing with Horne's theory of pre-autopsy illicit surgery to the head. Keven rightly ignores your off-topic post, after which you use that against him, saying it is some kind of lawyerly trick. It is not a lawyerly trick. Please stick to the topic of this thread. If you wish to discuss James Jenkins' opinion of Horne's illicit head surgery theory, please do so on a separate thread.

I said you were bootlicking because I recall the last time Keven proved Pat lied, your response was much the same as it is this time. That it wasn't a matter of lying, but rather a matter of interpretation. And so you came to Pat's rescue. Well, you are just as wrong this time as you were last time. This matter has nothing to do with interpretation and everything to do with whether a person accepts a fact or decides to fraudulently mischaracterize it to meet their objectives.

Gee Sean, That sounds a lot like what we have going on here, doesn't it? But then, the difference is that it was "basically a theory" in your story, whereas it is a proven lie in this story.

fraudulent (ˈfrɔːdjʊlənt) adj 1. acting with or having the intent to deceive 2. relating to or proceeding from fraud or dishonest action [C15: from Latin fraudulentus deceitful] Stating a proven fact is not "ad hominem."

Notwithstanding Jean Ceulemans' unsurprising pro-Speer bootlicking, Keven has unequivocally proven that Pat is wrong about James Jenkins' position regarding the large wound on the back of JFK's head, and the deceptive means Pat has used to change the meaning of what he said. Jenkins states right there in the 1991 video that there was a fist-sized wound on the back of the head prior to the mortician reconstructing the head, after which the hole was reduced to about the size of a silver dollar. What Pat did was cherry-picked some of what Jenkins said, and took it out of context so that it seemed like he was saying that the scalp was intact in the area. For the visuals, Pat cherry-picked frames that were most favorable to his narrative. This is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do with the large wound on Kennedy's head.

Keven, Thank you for spending the time and effort to research and present the case you are laying out here. It is important that falsehoods be called out for what they are. It is especially important for respected researchers to be called out because it can otherwise result in serious damage to our cause. I'd hate to be a newbie who followed a researcher for a while only to learn that I'd been believing lies. We all need to be made aware of people like these.

Oh, I get it now. Woodstein = Woodward + Bernstein I'd never heard that before. I've never been a student of Watergate.

I was surprised when Matt said Moynihan was Deep Throat. And especially when you said he might be. We all know that Mark Felt admitted to being Deep Throat decades ago. And not only that, but that Woodward and Bernstein both confirmed the identification. I don't know how you guys get around that.

Fine and dandy... Okay, so you believe that Oswald was set up to be a (or the) patsy for the assassination. How do you suppose the assassination plotters got Oswald into the building he needed to be in to take the blame for the assassination?

You mean, you don't believe Oswald was set up to be a patsy?

Of course she denied it. But from the FBI's perspective she may have been lying in order to protect herself from prosecution. I seem to have lost you. There was no $6500. There was no talk of assassination. There wasn't even an authentic Oswald. The whole incident was a fabrication carried out by the CIA in an attempt to make it appear that Cuba/Russia paid Oswald $6500 in order to kill Kennedy. This was done in order to give the U.S. military an excuse for invading Cuba or attacking Russia... and excuse that the American public would accept. But it was rejected by LBJ. He wanted no war with Cuba or Russia. My point wasn't whether or not the CIA's fake story was proven true. My point was that it seemed real enough to Hoover that he was even concerned about it! Keep in mind that it had already been decided a week earlier that there hadn't been a conspiracy and that they were going to blame only Oswald. So why were Elena Garro's and Gilberto Alvarado's allegations bothering Hoover? Because, if they were right, he was going to have to live with it! Can you imagine the WC convicting Oswald of the assassination, only to have the truth of a conspiracy with Cuba or Russia emerging a couple years down the road?

LOL, thanks Denny.

Given that the CIA found him disposable, he couldn't have been of much importance to them.

You're assuming that the plotters cared about the looks of the Oswald impersonator. Based all the evidence I'm aware of, Oswald didn't have a rifle and wasn't trying to shoot anybody. Maybe Ruby was more afraid of what might happen if didn't kill Oswald, than if he did kill Oswald. The CIA's plan gave LBJ two options, both of them favorable to the CIA. LBJ cold either accept the pretext for war on Cuba/Russia, or he could reject the pretext for war and blame only Oswald. Either way, there is no further investigation of the assassination! Which is exactly what the CIA wanted. Because that would invite further investigation of the assassination. Not something the perpetrators wanted. The CIA plotters had nearly no role in the coverup. That was a task taken on by the LBJ Administration to prevent WW3. The body is the Best Evidence. The CIA plotters were involved in making sure the autopsy was compatible with a lone gunman. Because, remember, their plan was to give LBJ the option of choosing conspiracy or lone gunman. I'm pretty sure its not that easy to assassinate a president. If it were, we wouldn't have a Putin leading Russia. Nobody -- including you -- knows where all the bullet entrances and exits are. Your theory, therefore, adds virtually nothing to the case. Your theory does nothing for the case other than making it unnecessarily more complex.

Reasons to Believe Oswald was a CIA Operative (Based on Jim Hargrove's list.) 1. CIA accountant James Wilcott testified that he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.” Contemporaneous HSCA notes indicate Wilcott told staffers, but wasn't allowed to say in Executive session, that the cryptonym for the CIA's "Oswald Project" was RX-ZIM. 2. Antonio Veciana said he saw LHO meeting with CIA’s Maurice Bishop/David Atlee Phillips in Dallas in August 1963. 3. A 1978 CIA memo indicates that a CIA operations officer “had run an agent into the USSR, that man having met a Russian girl and eventually marrying her,” a case very similar to Oswald’s and clearly indicating that the Agency ran a “false defector” program in the 1950s. 4. Robert Webster and LHO "defected" a few months apart in 1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both returned to the United States in the spring of 1962. 5. Richard Sprague, Richard Schweiker, and CIA agents Donald Norton and Joseph Newbrough all said LHO was associated with the CIA. 6. CIA employee Donald Deneslya said he read reports of a CIA "contact" who had worked at a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and child. 7. George Joannides, case officer and paymaster for DRE (which LHO had attempted to infiltrate) was put in charge of lying to the HSCA and never told them of his relationship to DRE. 8. For his achievements, Joannides was given a medal by the CIA. 9. FBI took Oswald off the watch list at the same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health, weeks after Oswald’s New Orleans arrest and less than two months before the assassination. 10. Oswald’s lengthy “Lives of Russian Workers” essay reads like a pretty good intelligence report. 11. Oswald’s possessions were searched for microdots. 12. Oswald owned an expensive Minox spy camera, which the FBI tried to make disappear. 13. Even the official cover story of the radar operator near American U-2 planes defecting to Russia, saying he would give away all his secrets, and returning home without penalty smells like a spy story. 14. LHO always seemed poor as a church mouse, until it was time to go “on assignment.” For his Russian adventure, we’re to believe he saved all the money he needed for first class European hotels and private tour guides in Moscow from the non-convertible USMC script he saved. 15. To this day, the CIA claims it never interacted with Oswald, that it didn’t even bother debriefing him after the “defection.” What utter bs…. 16. After he “defected” to the Soviet Union in 1959, bragging to U.S. embassy personnel in Moscow that he would tell the Russians everything he knew about U.S. military secrets, he returns to the U.S. without punishment and is then in 1963 given the OK to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union again! 17. Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by JFK, and the Warren Commission clearly wanted the truth hidden from the public to protect sources and methods of intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Earl Warren said, “Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security.” 18. CIA's Ann Egerter, who worked for J.J. Angleton's Counterintelligence Special Interest Group (CI/SIG), opened a "201" file on Oswald on December 9, 1960. Egerter testified to the HSCA: "We were charged with the investigation of Agency personnel....” When asked if the purpose was to "investigate Agency employees," she answered, "That is correct." When asked, "Would there be any other reason for opening up a file?" she answered, "No, I can't think of one."

Well, you suspect wrong. Here is how the FBI learned of a communist conspiracy to kill Kennedy: On 11/22/63, the FBI learned that Oswald had visited the Cuban Consulate and Soviet Embassy in late September 1963. The following day, the FBI learned that the Cuban Consulate employee who had helped Oswald, Silvia Duran, had been arrested by the Mexican police and was being brutally interrogated. They also learned that a woman by he name of Elena Garro had accused Duran of having an affair with Oswald, and that Oswald was friendly with several of Duran's associates. Elena Garro was held in protective custody for eight days for this. According to testimony Silvia Duran gave the HSCA, the Mexican police had suspected her of being the center of a communist plot to kill Kennedy. On 11/25/63, the FBI got a report that a man by the name of Gilberto Alvarado claimed to have seen Oswald accept $6500 in the Cuban Consulate to kill Kennedy. Much of his story corroborated Elena Garro's story. This story wasn't taken seriously at first because the date Alvarado gave was before Oswald's time in Mexico City. But later he corrected the date and the FBI took him more seriously. Add to the above the fact that Oswald had reportedly met with Valeriy Kostikov at the Soviet Embassy while he was in Mexico City. The CIA said that Kostikov was the KGB assassinations chief. Understandably, the FBI was worried that there might have been a plot between Oswald and Cuba and/or the Soviet Union. In fact, on 11/29/63, Hoover told Lyndon B. Johnson on the telephone: "This angle in Mexico is giving us a great deal of trouble because the story there is of this man Oswald getting $6,500 from the Cuban embassy and then coming back to this country with it. We're not able to prove that fact, but the information was that he was there on the 18th of September in Mexico City and we are able to prove conclusively he was in New Orleans that day. Now then they've changed the dates. The story came in changing the dates to the 28th of September and he was in Mexico City on the 28th. Now the Mexican police have again arrested this woman Duran, who is a member of the Cuban embassy... and we're going to confront her with the original informant, who saw the money pass, so he says, and we're also going to put the lie detector test on him." None of this is speculation... I'm just reporting facts. If you do your homework, it's not too hard to figure out that it was the CIA whose operation it was to make it look like Cuba or the Soviet Union was behind the assassination. Earlier in this thread you wrote, "The cover-up doesn't have to be because of 'CIA involvement in planning the assassination'." Well it certainly is something the United States has to cover up if they don't want to go to war with Cuba or Russia. If you want to see details on what I wrote above and sources, I suggest you look through this article: Deep Politics III by Peter Dale Scott Begin reading at this subtitle: Oswald, Russia, and Cuba: How the Managed Oswald Stories Led to the Warren Commission

That is just one of the many things you don't know (but could know had you studied it) that makes you think your theory is great.

Yes, Denise, of course the cover-up had to do with the CIA's involvement in planning the assassination. That's not just speculation... that's a known fact. How does your theory account for the fact that the assassination was designed in a way that the Soviets and the Cubans would be blamed? The CIA made it look like Oswald was friendly with the Cubans and had been paid $6500 to kill Kennedy. And that he had met with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov. Yet in reality, the whole Mexico City affair, was done without Oswald even being there... it was done by Oswald impersonators. How do you explain that?