Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jonathan Cohen

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jonathan Cohen

  1. Once again John Butler is just spectacularly wrong with his theorizing. The wound he claims is "manufactured" and "fraudulent" is in fact verified not only by the Zapruder film but by Dealey Plaza witnesses who were mere feet away from President Kennedy during the shooting. There are ample reasons why this wound was not seen in the emergency room at Parkland Hospital and they do not require a preposterous level of alteration of the Zapruder film.
  2. How about.. simply because they needed more space?
  3. That is correct, and supports the notion that because she was pressing down on the right side of JFK's head during the trip to Parkland, the wound near the right ear that is clearly seen in the Zapruder film was not seen by the doctors in trauma room 1.
  4. Well, John, you've managed to utterly astonish me with your theories twice in the same thread. This one really takes the cake: that the evil alterationists had so much time on their hands and their work was so humdrum that they INSERTED FAKE PEOPLE into Dealey Plaza films and photos just for a laugh. It's breathtaking, truly.
  5. And so the photo of Bothun's grave that you posted earlier in this thread is ... also fake? Or are you claiming Bothun was a real person but never was actually in Dealey Plaza? And just so I'm clear, what possible purpose could there have been on the part of the conspirators and film alterationists to insert this specific fake human presence a la Bothun in the Zapruder film?
  6. So now you've decided Altgens is real? Does that mean you still think Bothun is not real and is actually just a duplicate version of Altgens pasted into films and photos?
  7. Congratulations to John Butler for coming up with yet another "conclusion" that not even the zestiest of JFK conspiracy theorists had previously brought forth: that Dealey Plaza photographers James Altgens and Dick Bothun are actually the same person, who have been magically pasted into various Dealey Plaza films and photos, including the Zapruder film. Major points for imagination!
  8. Chris, thank you for this sensible analysis and for not starting with a pre-determined conclusion on the issue. What you've shown here is that like it or not, the Dealey Plaza photo record is self-authenticating.
  9. Not only is it believable, it is supported by a wealth of primary source, documentary evidence and numerous witness statements from people who knew the Oswalds well during this period of time. That's more than can be said for your conjecture about Oswald's lucrative career as a spy.
  10. Right. So as usual, you have no actual EVIDENCE to support your theories. Waggoner Carr may have believed whatever he was told about Oswald being a paid FBI informant, but there is no documentary EVIDENCE to support that claim. Conversely, there is AMPLE first-hand evidence from those who knew the Oswalds in Texas after they returned from Russia that they were barely able to survive on Oswald's meager income. The White Russian community took pity on them for this precise reason. I'd like to know where you think Oswald was hiding the riches he pocketed as an FBI informant. What did he use this money for? Why didn't he leave more of that money behind for Marina on the morning of the assassination? And if he was so wealthy, why did he profess to only have $60 to his name in the note he wrote the night of General Walker's assassination attempt, and that the Red Cross would be available to help Marina if he was "taken prisoner" and sent to the "city jail" ?
  11. Oh really? Do you have a SHRED of evidence to support this contention? Virtually EVERY witness who knew the Oswalds after they moved back to Texas from the Soviet Union testified to their poverty.
  12. As usual, literally everything in the above paragraph written by John Butler is at best pure speculation with no direct evidence to support it, and at worst, laughably, provably wrong.
  13. You are the one who made the claim that Marina Oswald was a Russian spy before and after the assassination. I asked you to support it with evidence. Clearly you cannot, or you would. So since you appear to be punting on this one, I will open the question up to anybody else on this forum to provide evidence to support the notion that Marina Oswald was a Russian spy before and after the assassination.
  14. Please provide a single shred of evidence to support either of these two claims (hint: there isn't any, and no serious researcher of this case believes it).
  15. As if your prior insistence that every Dealey Plaza image has been altered wasn't bad enough, It is laughable that you now claim the film footage from Oswald's time in Dallas Police custody has been altered too. Is there ANY outlandish JFK assassination conspiracy theory you DON'T believe? When does it end?
  16. None of them are Harvey Oswald, because Harvey Oswald never existed. All three of those photos are of the same person. Also, to suggest that one person never in his or her life would wear trousers at a different level on their hips is rather absurd...
  17. I don't want to further sidetrack this thread (which at this point clearly demonstrates that H&L proponents do not have a shred of evidence to support the claim that Edwin Ekdahl was involved with U.S. intelligence), but I cannot let Sandy Larsen's latest post go without comment. Let's just break this down a bit, shall we? Is Sandy claiming that, "after the Marines switcheroo," the original Lee Harvey Oswald was just off somewhere living his normal life, while his doppelganger "Harvey" was doing all the things we would normally have associated with the birth Oswald? Is Sandy actually claiming that there was some baseball team bullpen of lookalike imposters from which the CIA simply chose at their leisure to perform such missions as killing Officer Tippit? Would this then also mean that Marina Oswald was actually married to "Harvey" and never even met or knew the original Lee Harvey Oswald? And that Marina's children were fathered by "Harvey," and not Lee? And that Marguerite Oswald was unable to realize that her son Lee had been replaced by the doppelganger "Harvey" upon "his" return from the Soviet Union?
  18. I'd love to know how you reconcile the notion that someone "painted" fingernails onto this photo when, as Steve Roe has pointed out, the original negative exists?
  19. Here you go trotting out Jack White again - a man whose HSCA testimony clearly demonstrates his lack of actual expertise in photographic analysis (to say nothing of his preposterous faked moon landing and 9/11 hoax punditry). Can you point to any professional photographic analysis -- not amateur, armchair sleuthing the likes of which is done on this forum -- that supports your claim the backyard photographs are fakes?
  20. This is not in any way what the John Martin film shows, but OK...
  21. This doesn't answer Jeremy's question. Just because the "talents" of Eastern European refugees were "exploited" after World War II, how does that in any way support the specific implementation of a long-term doppelganger project involving the variables Jeremy outlined above (two boys who maybe, just maybe, would grow up to look identical, two identical mothers, etc.) ?
  22. John, stop for a second and think about what you're saying. Are you suggesting that during the assassination, one "Oswald" was inside the Texas School Book Depository, and the other "Oswald" was standing in the doorway of the building? If so, what measures were in place to make sure the two "Oswalds" didn't accidentally run right smack into one another, thus foiling the entire decades-long doppelganger project? Why on earth would the conspirators risk that happening at the absolute most important moment of the conspiracy? Considering that "Harvey and Lee" theorists still can't get their stories straight on which "Oswald" was which some 57 years after the crime, the rhetorical question of whether Roger Craig could "have identified one Oswald from the other" seems particularly moot...
  23. As has been covered on this forum over and over again, the Moorman photos were never altered. Just for fun, I'd love for you to explain to us how and when the evil plotters painted trees onto a Polaroid a few inches in size -- an alteration that apparently went undetected until you discovered it?
  24. The answer, quite simply, is that nobody really knows what this memo was all about, but it appears to be a rather benign mix of paranoia on the part of Marguerite Oswald and imprecise language on the part of Hoover. This article offers a clear-eyed analysis and provides valuable background information. Tracy Parnell has also covered this subject extensively on his own site. Again, the larger point is that EVEN IF someone was (or was attempting to) impersonate Oswald as far back as 1960, there is ZERO evidence it was connected to some larger, decades-long conspiracy to pass off two distinct people (and their mothers) as one.
  • Create New...