Jonathan Cohen

Except the people who saw him from street level, you mean.

Roger, technically it was the next day because it was at midnight, but you're making it sound like it was a full day after the assassination, which it wasn't. That interpretation is no more valid than the notion that, quite simply, nobody said Oswald was in front of the Book Depository or saw him because... he wasn't there.

The notion of "believing something despite not knowing if it's credible and not studying it" speaks volumes.

Your interpretation is what's nonsense. The presence of a 201 file in no way proves he was a witting employee of the agency. And there's no point endlessly reposting Jim Hargrove's "list," which has been debunked over and over again.

There's not a shred of evidence Oswald willingly worked for American intelligence agencies. Sandy's convenient excuse for everything.

There is no "other" Zapruder film. This was merely a bootleg made from the copy sent to Garrison's investigative team.

Thanks for this, Tracy. Excellent work.

That's what your method seems to be, actually - including your evidence-free insinuation that Fred Litwin is a paid CIA plant. Not only is it not "disinformation," at all, but it is absolutely just as valid as any pro-conspiracy version of events.

Simply your opinion. I do not agree that it has been "definitively debunked," at all. Nobody on earth is claiming Oswald was positioned anywhere other than the Book Depository. There is just as much evidence that shots were fired from there as there is for the Grassy Knoll. They were mistaken, as has been covered to death on this forum and elsewhere. The acoustic evidence is rightfully and highly disputed and certainly cannot in and of itself be used to claim a conspiracy. Pure speculation and not applicable to any real-world scenarios. In other words, there's nothing definitive about ANY of the points you made.

That "narrative" has not been definitively debunked by the evidence. Are there reasons to doubt that conclusion? Yes. Are there just as many reasons to believe the "WCR/LN" version of events is correct? Yes.

Tell that to the dozens of eminent assassination researchers I've collaborated and corresponded with for more than 30 years. Are they clueless too?

You have a very bad habit of answering questions with other questions. So I'm not going to answer yours until you answer mine.

And once again, you appear to be appointing yourself as the judge and jury about what's "disinformation" and what isn't. Why didn't you ever speak up when people spammed this forum for years with "disinformation" about a decades-long secret government doppelganger scheme involving Lee Oswald, which has been debunked over and over again? Or the idiotic body alteration theory peddled by David Lifton? Or when Robert Groden passes off fake autopsy photos as real ones in his books? The double standard is abundantly clear to any serious researcher of this case.

Oh good lord. Not this again. Seriously? We literally had this same discussion three years ago. So I guess I'll repeat that Tracy has already offered a perfectly plausible and logical alternative to Wilcott’s completely unsubstantiated claims: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html?m=1

This is outrageous. Are you now the sole arbiter of what constitutes "propaganda?" How is this being allowed from a forum moderator? We are treading back into Sandy Larsen territory here, which I never thought was possible..

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?