Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jonathan Cohen

Members
  • Content Count

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jonathan Cohen

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

5,984 profile views
  1. Not to take this topic further off into a tangent, but at the 11:40 mark of this presentation, John Newman makes a very credible case for the use of "Lee Henry Oswald" in conjunction with the Mexico City episode being an innocent error on the part of John Whitten, and not part of some larger obfuscation. It's all the more reason not to believe anything Chauncy Holt said.
  2. Chauncey Holt lied about being one of the tramps in Dealey Plaza, a claim completely undermined by the actual arrest records from 11/22/63. Why then should we believe anything he has to say about providing forged paperwork for Oswald?
  3. You're joking, right? I hope you're really not posting such a sentence with a straight face...
  4. I see you are back to your usual "hey, look over here!" tactics. No surprise. What do ANY of the claims you mention have to do with a long-term doppelganger theory, specifically the fatal flaws in said theory (Russian language proficiency, mastoidectomy scar) that Jeremy, RCD, Mark Stevens and others have repeatedly asked you to address?
  5. They were afraid? According to who? Does EVERYTHING have to have a conspiratorial explanation? Why is it so hard to accept that agents would have wanted to identify EVERYONE in the building doorway in Altgens 6?
  6. That is what Hosty's notes appear to reflect Oswald having said. It still doesn't make any sense why Oswald HIMSELF did not repeat this information any of the umpteen times he was in earshot of reporters and journalists in the Dallas jail after his arrest. This information would have been disseminated around the world in a matter of moments and would have instantly changed the narrative about the suspect and the shooting. Further, why didn't he tell his family members this when they came to visit him?
  7. Believe me, Andrej.. I would LOVE for it to be him. It would clear up SO MUCH confusion (and BTW, I admire the work you are doing with these images). But it defies logic that A) not one single person said they saw Oswald watching the motorcade from that spot and B) that he did not scream from the heavens at every possible opportunity that he was, in fact, watching the motorcade from that spot and as such could not have shot JFK.
  8. "Probably similar" ? If you can't be more definitive than that, why bother using it as an example here? But just for the sake of argument, why is it so hard to believe that Oswald used something like this to help teach himself the language? Why is it any different than just opening a book in another language and attempting to learn individual words, sentences, etc?
  9. No, actually, you can't make those things out on a 25 X 25 pixel image. For one, you can't make ANYTHING out on an image of that size. For another, you certainly can't "make out Ozzie's hairline, his right ear, his neck and unbuttoned shirt," because... it's not him.
  10. For crying out loud. The actual human being whose autopsy report you are referencing is the one and only historical Lee Harvey Oswald.
  11. Right - the upcoming intel mission is so secret that he just sits in his barracks openly reading Russian materials for all to see? Another masterstroke by the long-term doppelganger plotters!
  12. You can expect whatever you like. But your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. I have never once said I believe "LHO did it all by his lonesome." In fact, I don't believe that at all. Indeed, a person can -- and many people on this forum do -- believe in Oswald's innocence of the assassination without subscribing to the absolutely idiotic theory espoused in H&L.
×
×
  • Create New...