Jonathan Cohen
-
Posts
1,236 -
Joined
-
Last visited
1 Follower
(4).thumb.jpg.78f31c01bd6e6c4d0e9f89809113f03f.jpg)
Recent Profile Visitors
8,479 profile views
Jonathan Cohen's Achievements
Mentor (12/14)
-
Rare
-
-
-
-
Recent Badges
-
Another highly objectionable comment from a moderator. If you have any actual proof that Fred Litwin is "part of a multi-year disinformation campaign to smear the JFK investigators who have debunked the Warren Commission Report," I and many others would love for you to share it. Otherwise, you're just spewing hot air. -
I only disagree with members who repeat long-debunked nonsense about this case, which, on this forum, is far too many. By all means - point out a specific instance where I was "in fact wrong," in your words.
-
I have offered plenty of substance, and I have never once posted here for the purpose of "trolling." In this particular case, the "substance" is Litwin's research, which is now available for all to examine (or, apparently, for one of the moderators to demean as paid CIA disinformation without even bothering to read it).
-
I'm not discouraging anything. In fact, I am PROMOTING the work of unbiased, scholarly researchers not afraid to go against the usual conspiracy nonsense proffered for 60-plus years and especially rampant on this forum.
-
So what? That hardly allows you to imply that he has, or is presently doing so.
-
Irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is that you appear to be directly accusing another forum member of being a paid government disinformation agent, with zero evidence to back it up.
-
This is a highly objectionable comment from a forum moderator and amounts to accusing another forum member of being a paid government propagandist. Why is this being allowed?
-
I am happy to stand with authors and researchers on EITHER side of this debate who have debunked decades worth of nonsense -- in this case, the ramblings of the mentally ill Richard Case Nagell.
-
OK, then SHOW us how it is blatantly false. Otherwise you are just making things up. Most serious researchers have long since dispensed with Nagell's story. Even Larry Hancock admits it has serious issues.
-
I again find these comments rather troubling, especially from a moderator. Are you insinuating that Greg Doudna is a "CIA-funded propagandist" ? Are you "calling BS" on a book you proudly proclaim you haven't read?
-
Which is exactly within the range of the estimates that have been given for more than 60 years -- ie., there's no substantive case for alteration here.
-
Are these type of putdowns really necessary, especially from a moderator? Do you have any specific evidence or refutation to offer here? If not, why post?
-
Fred, I also look forward to reading this, particularly the section on Richard Case Nagell.
-
Paul, you are simply wrong. You are watching the exact same thing from two different filming positions.
-
Except that there are no frames being skipped and certainly no "cinematic effects" added, so this "perspective" is not "different" - it's just wrong.