Jonathan Cohen

1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:

If Lundahl and McCone were not in on the plot, weren’t they shocked by the conclusion of multiple shooters from the briefing boards?

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

17 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

According to James Files

There's your first problem right there!

On 7/25/2024 at 12:36 AM, Kevin Balch said:

If Brugioni saw a camera original or a first generation copy on Saturday night, why didn’t he see the (supposed) limo stop?

If Zapruder filmed all or parts of the motorcade at 48 frames per second, why wasn’t this noted when the film was projected in Dallas or at NPIC on Saturday night?

If the film was altered, what is the explanation of the (supposed) correlation of the timing of the four shots from the acoustics evidence with the Zapruder film?

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

29 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Herr Ulrik

Is that really necessary?

35 minutes ago, Pete Mellor said:

The Secret Service's stripping of JFK's protection in Dallas followed by their Bethesda casket conjuring tricks alone would incite any reasonable person to question the validity of other aspects of the case.

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?

57 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Though I'm surprised you found a flaw in it, given that nobody else has been able to. What exactly is the flaw?

Or are you just making stuff up again?

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.'"

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

So yes, the only “evidence” the Z-film was ever in Rochester at all is sole-source second-hand 34 year-old hearsay from a witness with major credibility problems. 

Lastly, the CIA HRG did NOT confirm the Z-film was in Rochester. All they did was tell the ARRB that the name “Hawkeye works” was still classified TS/SCI, and that the McMahon interview must be marked and stored accordingly. That’s it. They did not comment at all on the substance of McMahon’s claims. 

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

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Roughly 40 of the 45 gaping head wound witnesses said early on that the wound was located on the back of the head and not at the top. It is statistically impossible for that many witnesses to all get the location wrong.

So Jeremy is wrong in this instance.

This is proof that the Z film has been altered. As has the back-of-head autopsy photo.

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.

2 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

There is EVIDENCE but you don't have to believe it. Prouty, Krulak and Morrow all think that was Lansdale in that pic with the three tramps. You are welcome to have a different point of view.

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

22 minutes ago, Don Jeffries said:

It was only thanks to researcher Scott Myers, who used to post regularly at Rich Dellarosa's old forum and sent me the original videotape, that I knew about all those references to the 9:39 pm phone call, which was also reported by UPI and ABC News. That call by itself destroys the official narrative, because we were subsequently told that 9:39 pm was the exact moment JFK, Jr.'s plane went into a death spiral.

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.

1 hour ago, Stu Wexler said:

A key question is did Veciana stike you as being evasive or mendacious re: his personal account of the JFK assassination (meeting Oswald)?

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

16 hours ago, Robert Reeves said:

These people know the truth about Lansdale being on the ground in Dealey Plaza.

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?

40 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

The Z film showing that discrepancy becomes a problem.

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? 

21 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Nursing home was prob a cover for CIA/Pentagon special ops.

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?

1 hour ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

This goes back quite a while, but does this not tie in with Tosh Plumlee's claim that he recognized this man...whom he knew as "Gator",  because of an injury that caused his limp...

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

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

They acted accordingly based on what the boards showed about what happened.

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?

1 hour ago, Karl Kinaski said:

He was a black operative and connected with IC people, handlers etc. In fact Oswald knew more people in in higher positions than a average youngster.

What "people in higher positions" did he know?

26 minutes ago, Ty Carpenter said:

I have a hard time believing a republican would shoot the Don.

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

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

The tactics may be different, but it's the same motive: make sure he doesn't get a second term

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.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

BTW, for those who are unaware of the proof, it merely uses statistical methods and formulas to quantify the obvious, that when a large number of witnesses see that X clearly happened and that Y clearly did not happen, then X DID happen.

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?

13 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

his was no security breakdown. Thomas Matthew Crook with his Rifle was deliberately ignored by Local Law enforcement and the secret service ... for minutes. 

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