Jonathan Cohen

Careful, Kevin. You're making far too much sense for the alterationists on this thread :).

There's your first problem right there!

All great questions, Kevin. They reveal the massive alteration theory to be a house of cards.

Is that really necessary?

Nobody said you can't "question the validity of other aspects of the case." The problem is that when you actually look at the EVIDENCE, the notion of massive alteration of the assassination film and photo record is shown to be absolute nonsense.

Uh huhhh.. so if that's actually Lansdale in the tramps photo, what was he doing? Why made him move over to where the tramps were at that very moment, especially in light of the facts that the tramps were in fact nothing but actual tramps and not in any way whatsoever connected to the assassination?

The flaw is the entire premise! As Pat very capably explained to you, "there is no scientific or historical basis for selecting statements and then claiming these statements 'prove' what you claim to be true. A scientist or an historian might take from this that these statements suggest a certain scenario, but there is no such thing as 'proof.'"

Thank you, Tom. Once again, Sandy Larsen is completely wrong with his "statistical proofs" above.

Sandy Larsen has proved absolutely nothing with his "statistics," and his insistence on repeating this from thread to thread hardly makes his argument more convincing.

Unfortunately, I don't believe it, and hardly any veteran researcher I know does either.

Couldn't it have been a simple mistake in the midst of covering a breaking news story? This happened routinely even back during the weekend of Nov. 22, 1963 -- with no huge conspiracy necessary to explain it.

Stu, doesn't it seem like Veciana's entire account involving "Bishop" and allegedly meeting Oswald has fallen apart under closer, modern scrutiny?

There's no evidence whatsoever that Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963.

Are we really giving these JFK Jr. plane crash conspiracy theories oxygen here? Seriously?

And you keep ignoring another MASSIVE problem, which is that if the Z film showed "that discrepancy," so would many other films and photos taken during the assassination. Did the plotters expect to magically be able to round up every single piece of contradictory evidence so they could alter them too?

Surely, you are joking?

Why after eight years are you reviving a random thread to call out another member for your own purely self aggrandizing reasons? Why do you keep bragging about your "proofs" all over this forum, when in fact they are absolutely not "proofs" in any way, shape or form?

Anything Tosh Plumlee has said about his activities in and around 11/22/1963 needs to be taken with a gigantic grain of salt...

And once again I ask, how could "they" possibly be sure that further film and photo evidence wouldn't emerge in the days following the assassination, which would naturally invalidate and expose the entire alteration of the Zapruder film in the first place?

What "people in higher positions" did he know?

Why? A person who admired President Kennedy still assassinated him in broad daylight in 1963.

What absolute, utter nonsense (IN MY OPINION). The only person who will make sure Donald doesn't get a second term is Donald himself when he loses the election in a few months.

That's not "proof," in any way, shape or form.

But David, can we really "skip over" the Plumlee bits when he's one of the main advocates for a south knoll shooter in the first place?

Sooooo.. local law enforcement and the Secret Service conspired to allow this person to shoot at Trump?