Sandy Larsen's Draft Editor

[Sandy Larsen]

This is where I draft new presentations.

Please do not post anything in this thread.
It will fade away into obscurity (except for me) as long as nobody posts to it.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm going to do a writeup based on your recent post. Maybe you can help me by finding photos... you seem to remember better than I where they are. It won't be that much work and I'll give you credit as coauthor.

Suggestions are welcome. Just reply to this thread any time.

The draft of my writeup will be in the post following this one.

 

Proof that Bart Kamp's Gloria Calvery is NOT Gloria Calvery

This proof is short very easy to follow.

Forget about Gloria Calvery for now. Let's talk about the three girls in the photos below.

According to their FBI affidavits, these three women stood together along Elm Street to watch the motorcade go by.

These are known/accepted photos of them when they were in high school. Except for the darker skinned one, Stella Mae Jacob,, for which we have only the Dealey Plaza photos. Note that she is a native American.

 

         

Left:      Stella Mae Jacob
Middle:  Gloria Jean Holt
Right:     Sharron Simmons

FBI Affidavits

We know these three woman were standing together because they said so in their FBI affidavits:

Stella Mae Jacob:  "I am an Indian female.... I was accompanied by Sharon Simmons, now Mrs. Nelson, and [Gloria] Jeanne Holt, both employees of the Texas School Book Depository."

Gloria Jean Holt:  "I was accompanied by Sharon Simmons, now Mrs. Nelson, and Stella Jacob, both-employees of the Texas School Book Depository."

Sharon Simmons:  "I was with [Gloria] Jeannie Holt, 2521 Pleasant Drive, Dallas, and Stella Jacob, 508 South Marsalis, Dallas, at the time the President was shot."

(Source, pages 43 , 48, 69)

Note that Stella Mae Jacob described herself as being an Indian. This explains her darker skin. Note also that all three worked at the TSBD.

And Here They Are!

Anybody can look through Dealey Plaza photos and find these women. Since they were standing together, all we need to do is find one and the other two should be there with her.

And here they are! The top frame was taken when they were waiting for the motorcade to arrive, and the bottom frame shortly after the shooting. (They had moved back onto the grass.) Clearly, the three women on the right comprise our group of three  women.
 

The woman labeled as "Unidentified dark skinned woman" has since been identified as the the native American of the group, Stella Mae Jacob. Everybody agrees that is her in the two frames. And from that we know, that the other two must be Gloria Jean Holt and Sharron Simmons.

But for fun let's compare them to their high school photos:

                                            
(Dealey Plaza Photo)

 

Not surprisingly the high school photos match. Everything jibes.

But Bart Kamp Claims Differently

Normally I don't care much what individual researchers believe. But in this case I do. Why? Because Bart is the undisputed champ and expert when it comes to the dismantling of the Second Floor Encounter. He has a lot of influence over others and can steer them in either the right or wrong direction.

I'm afraid that in this case he is wrong. And I'm afraid that, because of that, some of his his work is flawed.

That is why I am stepping up and trying to nip this in the bud.

Here is how Bart is wrong. We know from the FBI affidavits and the photos that the light-haired woman above is Gloria Jean Holt. From the color frame above it looks like she's a strawberry blonde. Well Bart claims that this strawberry blonde isn't Gloria Jean Holt at all. He says she is Gloria Calvery... this woman:
 

 

But how can Bart be right? We already know who the three women are. The answer is that he NOT right. He is basing his opinion of the 55- year old memories of Karen Westbrook. She was shown the Zapruder frame that shows only the backs of the heads and somehow decided she was one of the women

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

[reserved]

 

14 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Paul,

 

If you go up a line or two, Ambulance 603 tells Dispatch that he is Code 5 out to Baylor.

That would be the Baylor University Medical Center.

According to the Dallas Police Radio Codes, Code 5 is "Enroute" and Code 6 is "Arrived".

http://www.bearcat1.com/radiotx.htm

Two pages later, on page 410 of that pdf, Ambulance 603 informs Dispatch that he has arrived at Baylor, and Dispatch acknowledges this at 1:23 PM.

 

If you go through those lines on page 408 that you pointed out, Ambulance 602 announces that he is Code 5, "Enroute", then he announces he is Code 6, has "Arrived", then he announces again that he is Code 5, "Enroute".

I'm not sure what that is all about, but you can see on the next page (page 409), that Ambulance 602 twice more calls in and tries to raise Dispatch.

On the next page (page 411), you can see Dispatch trying to respond to 602.

On the next page, (page 412), Dispatch asks Gerald Hill (#550/2) if he know what ambulance took Tippit, that "we had three going". (I'm not sure which three ambulances Dispatch is talking about here).

Hill responds that he was at 12th and Beckley, and saw an ambulance from Dudley Hughes pass in front of him and thought he might have Tippit. This is at 1:25. 

Dispatch again tries to raise 602 on page 412.

I'm pretty sure 602 was from the Dudley Hughes Funeral Home. If my memory serves me right, at that time, the ambulance services in Dallas were stationed out of the funeral homes.

 

I'm pretty sure that the 1:10 time stamp in the transcripts is simply a typo on the part of the person doing the typing, because it comes after a 1:11 time stamp, a 1:15 time stamp, and a 1:16 time stamp on page 407.

 

Steve Thomas

 

Steve,

I'm using this radio transcript:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm

To me it appears that the following happened with the ambulances, in chronological order:

1. Ambulance 603 arrived at the Tippit site. They reportedly had radio trouble... presumably that is the reason they didn't advise the dispatcher of their arrival there.  Anyway, because of that we don't know the precise arrival time.
2. At 1:18 ambulance 603 transmitted "Code 5, Baylor. " Meaning they were en route to Baylor. I think with Tippit's body.
3. At 1:19 ambulance 602 transmitted "What was that address on Jefferson?" 602 was clearly not headed to or from the Tippit site.
4. At 1:23 ambulance 603 transmitted "Out, Baylor." I believe this means that they were at out of their vehicle at Baylor. (There are a lot of "out" codes, like "Out of Service," signifying they are not available for calls.) The transcript notes their siren sound, so they must have just arrived. (I don't know why they didn't give the Code 6 Arrival signal.)

So according to the radio log, Tippit's body arrived at the hospital at 1:23. And yet time of death was recorded as 1:15 on the death certificate. How does one explain that? The doctors couldn't know he died 8 minutes before they saw him.

As with the other discrepancies, this one disappears if you subtract 8 minutes from the police radio timestamps. Tippit's ambulance actually arrived at 1:23 - 0:08 = 1:15. The doctors pronounced him DOA at that time.

 

(Yes, I earlier did say the WC/FBI added 7 minutes to each timestamp, not the 8 I just used here. 7 minutes was my best estimate at the time I studied the Tippit timeline versus the police radio timestamps. But keep in mind there can be only a one-second difference between 7 and 8 minutes depending upon which part of the minutes you're looking at.  Also, keep in mind that clocks are not all synchronized with perfect timing.)

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

[reserved]

 

 

 

 

Following is a quick tutorial on what a logarithmic scale is and what it does for us.

 

This graphic shows how a gradient (gradually increasing) of light looks on a logarithmic versus linear scale. (Ignore the numbers on the graphic.) In the graphic, a number represents the light level, with 0 representing the darkest color and 255 representing the brightest. Obviously, the color in this case is white. (255 is an often-used maximum number in digital devices.)

A linear scale (left in the graphic) is what everybody is accustomed to using and seeing. Starting from the bottom and moving upward on the linear scale, the light level increases at a constant pace. So, say we move half way up. At that position, The light level will then be half the maximum brightness and the corresponding number will be half the maximum number, which is 255 x 1/2 = 128  (rounded off).

On the logarithmic scale (right in the graphic), instead of the light level increasing at a constant pace, it moves at a much faster pace when the level is near 0, and gradually moves slower and slower as the light level gets brighter. If we move half way up this time, the light level will be 1/16th the maximum brightness and the corresponding number will be 16. (I will spare you the math.) Compare that to 128 for the linear scale.

So what the logarithmic scale does for us is expand the dark colors (black and dark grays in this case) at the expense of the light colors (white and light grays in this case) which it squishes. Indeed, if we compare the gray colors in the linear and logarithmic rectangles in the graphic, we will see that the dark grays are spread out -- or magnified -- in the logarithmic one.

This magnification allows us to easily see changes in the dark colors. Looking at Andrej's Z frame above, whose colors are on a logarithmic scale, we can easily see where the "black patch" was drawn on with a black marker of some kind. Maybe just a Magic Marker.

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

[reserved]

 

 

Oswald was interrogated several times. In three of his interrogations he talks about his trip to the second floor to buy a coke for lunch. If you read those reports you will see that they are consistent:

 

DPD Report -- Hosty's handwritten notes:

[Oswald] stated he was present for work at the T.S.B.D. on the morning of the 22nd and at noon went to lunch. He went to 2nd floor to get a coca cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then he went outside to watch [Presidential] Parade.

 

FBI Report #1

Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building.

 

FBI Report #3

Oswald stated that ... he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, ... he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home.

 

From these we can see that Oswald

1. Bought a coke on the second floor.
2. Took it down to the first floor for lunch.
3. Ate lunch.
4. And remained on the first floor (inside or out) after
   that as the presidential motorcade went by.

 

The Coverup

None of the above accounts is compatible with the official WC narrative of Oswald being on the 6th floor during the shooting. The FBI decided to invent a story around Oswald's trip to get a coke, and this invention is the 2nd floor Oswald/Baker encounter.

The FBI decided to add their story to a couple of the interrogation reports. Unfortunately for them, doing so left behind a clue that one of the reports had been altered.

 

Inconsistency in DPD Report #3 Revealing the Coverup

If you look closely at DPD Report #3 above, you will see that I removed two sections of text and put ellipses (...) in their place. It is in those two places that the FBI coverup artists added their bogus 2nd floor story. Here is the same text with the two sections (in red) put back in place:

Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home.

 

From this we can see that Oswald

1. Bought a coke on the second floor.
2. Had an encounter with Officer Baker.
3. Took his coke down to the first floor for lunch.
4. Ate lunch.
5. And remained on the first floor (inside or out) after
   that.

Now, with the added bogus 2nd-floor encounter, we have Oswald eating lunch AFTER the shooting. And there is our clue.

I can't believe there are still people who believe the 2nd floor encounter ever happened.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

[reserved]

Where did James Jenkins really place the gaping head wound -- Debate challenge for Tom Gram!

 

A couple weeks ago on the James Gordon thread, Tom Gram began debating me on where James Jenkins placed the gaping wound on Kennedy's head. One of his last statements before Gordon locked the thread was this:

Tom Gram:  "Jenkins on multiple occasions placed the wound at the top of the head."

The truth is that Jenkins NEVER placed the wound at the top of the head. Never. He always placed it unambiguously on the back of the head. He said that what he saw was close to what the (well-known) McClelland drawing shows:

 

Jenkins said the wound was about the size of a fist.

 

I was amazed at the vehemence with which Tom argued his case given he clearly knows little about it. I know I wouldn't do that.

 

Begin Debate

I will begin the debate.

The only thing I need to do to debate my side is to quote James Jenkins, which I do in the following post.

Pat Speer claims that Jenkins changed his story in around 2015. This is not true, and I prove so by quoting Jenkins both before and after 2015. Jenkins' story remains the same. I get his post-2015 statements from his book At the Cold Shoulder of History, published in 2018, and his pre-2015 statements from a 1991 video.

Now, for my argument....

 

Edited June 25 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

James Jenkins' Description of the Gaping Head Wound

 

In 2018, from his book At the Cold Shoulder of History:

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. [From p. 121 of the Kindle book.]

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. [From p. 129 of the Kindle book.]

 

 

In 1991, from the video with Harrison Livingstone (see below):

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."

 

 

 

Edited June 21 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

After Reconstruction

James Jenkins describes how the gaping wound looked both before and after the morticians had reconstructed the head. We know from the morticians' statements that, after reconstruction of the head fragments, there was a hole remaining in the back of the head about the size of a "small orange" that they had to cover with piece of rubber so that formaldehyde wouldn't trickle out. They stretched and stitched the scalp tightly to cover that hole as must as possible.

What was left was a hole in the scalp the size of a silver dollar, according to James Jenkins.

I shouldn't even have to mention this hole as it is fully irrelevant to the topic of this debate. But Tom Gram has been influenced by Pat Speer, and Pat has gotten this silver-dollar-sized hole all wrong too. So here in this post I quote James Jenkins' statements regarding that hole, both before and after 2015 to prove that what he said about it never changed.

 

James Jenkins' Description of the Silver Dollar Sized Reconstruction Hole

 

In 2018, from his book At the Cold Shoulder of History:

"Now they are beginning to put the scalp and bone back in place as best they can. Everything seems to fit back except for the area of about not larger than a silver dollar. It's about I'd say maybe two inches of the occipital area on the parietal side in the area. Kind of standing looking at the head, it would be the upper left of the [original gaping] wound in the area of the [original gaping] wound." [From p. 80 of the Kindle book.]

 

In 1991, from the video with Harrison Livingstone (see below):

"After the plaster was placed by the mortician ... in the head, it was remolded... there was an area in the back of the head that had -- it was actually a hole in the back of the head that was approximately the size of the silver dollar."

 

 

 

Edited June 25 by Sandy Larsen

[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:

 

Edited June 25 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

As I said at the beginning of this debate, Tom Gram claimed that James Jenkins himself had said that the blowout wound was on the top of Kennedy's head. Here are Tom's exact words

Tom Gram:  "Jenkins on multiple occasions placed the wound at the top of the head."

And yet Tom can't find a single instance of Jenkins ever placing the wound there. He lost the debate.

So why did Tom -- a normally excellent researcher and respected member of the forum -- ever think such an erroneous thing about James Jenkins? I'll tell you why. Tom got his misinformation from Pat Speer. And he believed it.

My primary purpose for challenging Tom to this debate was to demonstrate why it is important to have a forum rules against posting demonstrably false information.

We shouldn't want our members to be exposed to false information when it can be avoided.

 

Edited June 27 by Sandy Larsen