Jonathan Cohen

8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Let's ignore this and bury it quickly.

Huh?

On 10/16/2024 at 5:42 PM, Joseph McBride said:

You keep obstinately missing the point,

that the "so-called evidence" was fabricated.

I know you will never admit that, because

your mission is to mislead, distract, waste

time, and obfuscate, so I won't engage

with you anymore or your confederates on this.

I'm not missing the point at all. I, like most other serious researchers of the case, do not just blindly accept that the only way Oswald could have been innocent is if every key witness lied and every piece of evidence was "fabricated." I find that premise to be absolutely ridiculous. But hey, you do you...

43 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

Armstrong's HARVEY & LEE has extensive, highly detailed

and documented chapters demonstrating that the so-called

evidence linking Oswald to the weapons placed into evidence

is false and does not link him to the weapons. He studies

and deconstructs the paper trails on both at great length.

The handgun was planted at the theater. And

the original rifle found (planted) at the TSBD was a Mauser, not

a Mannlicher-Carcano.

 

Jonathan will offer one of his perfunctory denials to

satisfy his position here, so I will just note that so

we can move on to more productive topics. He and David et al just want to keep

denying more than sixty years of independent research by scholars deconstructing

the officlal lying version that framed Oswald.

Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" isn't worth the paper it was printed on, which is why it is the laughingstock of the JFK assassination research community. He, and you, apparently, are the ones "denying" a mountain of evidence that Oswald owned the rifle and the pistol - not me.

1 hour ago, Joseph McBride said:

Oswald did not own the rifle or the handgun

entered into what he called "all this so-called

evidence." There is no actual proof

that he owned those weapons.

So your premise makes no sense.

"Don't believe all this so-called evidence,"

he told his brother Robert on November 23.

No actual proof besides the photos taken of him holding both weapons, the testimony of his wife that she saw him dry fire the rifle in the months before the assassination, the extant order forms for both weapons…

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Obviously Baker lied later on, just like Shelley and Lovelady lied later on. Obviously the coverup artists had enlisted their help to support their (fake) narrative.

Every theory Sandy Larsen espouses about the Kennedy assassination requires a litany of witnesses to be li*rs and for nearly every piece of evidence to be faked or altered. Now, step back for a second. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

52 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I don't think Baker was being told from above to lie to frame Oswald. I think most cops would get their hackles up if told to do that. I am not aware of any indication that Baker was corrupt or crooked, or that he was told from above to lie about anything.

This is an excellent point, Greg. Too many people here tie themselves into logical knots by using the lazy excuse "he/she lied!" or "he/she was forced to lie!" 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Show me the proof that CIA employee James Wilcott was wrong. (When he said that the scuttlebutt in the payroll office was that there was an Oswald Project from which Oswald was paid.)

Neither you, me nor anyone else can "prove" what employees in a government office building may have said to one another decades ago.

But since we literally had this same discussion three years ago, I repeat that @W. Tracy Parnell has already offered a perfectly plausible and logical alternative to Wilcott’s completely unsubstantiated claims, which, by the way, had absolutely nothing to do with a laughable and idiotic decades-long doppelganger scheme involving Lee Oswald and his mother.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html?m=1

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Quit making stuff up. Hargrove's list has not been debunked.

You are one of those LNers who add nothing useful to the forum, and therefore should be banned.

The fact that he, you or anyone, considers James Wilcott as evidence for Oswald being a CIA employee invalidates his entire list. I must be doing something right if the likes of you are crying about my presence here. That the good Lord above that you were rightfully stripped of your moderator duties.

5 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

No witness could place him on the 6th floor.

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

7 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

The next day, he said he hadn't been charged with the murder, nobody had said to him yet, in response to another did you kill the president question.

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.

8 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

In short the lack of witnesses to verify Oswald's alibi tells us nothing about its veracity.

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.

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I believe there is reason to believe that the gun was planted by the officer who confronted Oswald. I don't know if this is credible because I haven't studied it.

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

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Nonsense. There is a good deal of evidence that Oswald was employed by the CIA. For example, the CIA's 201 file on Oswald was held in James Angleton's CIA/SIG unit. His secretary, Anne Goodpasture, testified that their unit was used to "spy on spies." In other words, to investigate CIA employees' loyalty to the United States.

@Jim Hargrove has a comprehensive list of evidence that Oswald was CIA.

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.

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Because Oswald worked for the CIA and -- having been arrested for something he had nothing to do with -- he suspected that he had been framed by someone in the intelligence business.

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

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The evidence against him was fabricated.

Sandy's convenient excuse for everything.

18 minutes ago, Bill Fite said:

"I also took to the hostings to show the Zapruder film to groups across the country, mostly on college campuses."

I wonder if this was the often talked about 'Other Zapruder film'?

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.

13 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Their method seems to be-- repeat falsehoods.

That's what your method seems to be, actually - including your evidence-free insinuation that Fred Litwin is a paid CIA plant.

14 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

And their last epistemological refuge is to declare that their disinformation is just as valid as the true facts

Not only is it not "disinformation," at all, but it is absolutely just as valid as any pro-conspiracy version of events.

14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

The Warren Commission Report conclusion that a "Lone Nut"-- Lee Harvey Oswald-- assassinated President John F. Kennedy has been definitively debunked by a wide array of contrary evidence.

Simply your opinion. I do not agree that it has been "definitively debunked," at all.

14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Oswald could not have fired the fatal bullet from the Grassy Knoll area that knocked JFK's head violently back and to the left, as observed in the Zapruder film.  The Grassy Knoll gunshot, and smoke, were also described by multiple witnesses.

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.

14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

  Parkland Hospital physicians also described the occipital skull exit wound corresponding to the frontal skull entry wound.

They were mistaken, as has been covered to death on this forum and elsewhere.

14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

The U.S. Congress, itself, concluded-- on the basis of the acoustical evidence-- that more than one sniper was involved in the JFK assassination.

The acoustic evidence is rightfully and highly disputed and certainly cannot in and of itself be used to claim a conspiracy.

14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Furthermore, ballistics testing showed that a Carcano shot fired by Oswald from the TSBD would have blown off the right half of JFK's face.

Pure speculation and not applicable to any real-world scenarios. In other words, there's nothing definitive about ANY of the points you made.

56 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Are you someone who believes the WCR/LN narrative hasn't been definitively debunked by the evidence?

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.

6 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

@Jonathan Cohen, you're about as clueless as it gets.

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

35 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Jonathan,

     I joined this forum in 2017, so I'm a relative newbie compared to some of you old timers.

     Are you someone who believes the WCR/LN narrative hasn't been definitively debunked by the evidence?

      For example, do you believe that Oswald fired the shot from the Grassy Knoll area that knocked JFK's head violently backward and to the left, as observed?

      If so, how could he have been positioned simultaneously in the TSBD and on the Grassy Knoll?

      Doppelganger?  🤥

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

40 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

 It isn't "insulting" for a moderator, or any forum member, to tell the truth and set the record straight about WCR/LN disinformation on the Education Forum.

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.

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Isn't the only serious question here whether CIA accountant James Wilcott was correct when he told HSCA staffers that "Lee Harvey Oswald's" CIA cryptonym was RX-ZIM?

Is anything else remotely that important?
 

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

16 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

In my opinion, you should be banned from the Education Forum for persistently posting false, "Lone Nut" propaganda and, now, posting false, defamatory statements about a moderator.

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..

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

      Litwin's most recent cherry-picked disinformation didn't appear ex nihilo.  It's part of a multi-year disinformation campaign to smear the JFK investigators who have debunked the Warren Commission Report.

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.

17 hours ago, Robert Reeves said:

You post zero substance. In fact, you constantly disagree with members. You belittle their views:  but you have no research done by yourself to qualify your views. And when pointed out that you are, in fact - wrong ... you go underground and refuse to even acknowledge or debate the claims you've spewed.

I see you!

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.