Jonathan Cohen
-
Posts
1,064 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Jonathan Cohen
-
-
I believe this is just more pointless "what if," evidence-free insinuations about the Paines.
-
49 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
I wish to note that Dr. Aguilar's Kennedy & King's article throws researcher Doug Horne under the bus for his pro-photo-alteration beliefs. The following is Horne's public response to what Dr. Aguilar wrote. It points out a couple of Dr. Aguilar's "blind spots," as Horne puts it.
I trust the the logical, well-reasoned analysis of, you know, an actual doctor such as Gary much more than a civilian who has been pushing outlandish speculation about massive evidence fakery and body alteration for 25 years, such as Horne.
-
And once again Jim Hargrove is re-posting the same thing year after year, thread after thread, while refusing to acknowledge the mountain of evidence completely discrediting Wilcott's claims (which Tracy has so helpfully summarized below. There was no such thing as the "Oswald Project."
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html
-
I've said it before, but most people just wave it away. How can you massively alter one of the assassination films without knowing if other films and photos of the same scene would surface and immediately contradict the fakery?
-
12 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:
What I am asking from everyone here is why there are differences in these; whether it has something to do with copy generation, quality of film, alteration, whatever. I'm just looking for explanations. I have no agenda about this, as I've paid no attention to these claims in the past.
Matt, it would seem the only person who could answer this question is Wilkinson, since we have no idea what, if any, processing she and her colleagues did on the images. Also, I know the more zealous alterationists here dismiss anything Farid says, but his explanation for the back of the head shadow satisfies me.
-
5 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:
Z-317. A zoom-in of the image posted on page 6 of this thread
Right but do we know from which version of the film it was drawn? Or from where on the web it was sourced?
-
1 minute ago, Matt Allison said:
Toward the top of this very page I posted a picture of the one part of the film that looks altered to me. One part. Very straightforward.
Matt, what's the source of that image?
-
54 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
I used math to show that it is statistically impossible* for 40 out of 50 witnesses to agree with each other and at the same time be wrong.
Sandy, NOTHING is statistically impossible. Weird things happen in life. Coincidences happen all the time, no matter how unlikely they may seem. Were they impossible too?
-
10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
It is mathematical fact that so many witnesses couldn't have gotten it wrong. And with it being mathematical fact, it is also a scientific fact. Because math is a branch of science.
So, if Pat denies this proof, he is in fact anti-science.
This is absurd. You cannot apply "mathematical facts" to determine whether specific historical events actually happened or not.
-
32 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
Here is our friend Dr. Aguilar in an email to me last week (and yes, he said I could quote him):
"Re the 'back of the head blowout' controversy, I think you put your finger on it, Pat: Jack's scalp flaps fell backward as he lay on the gurney, face up, at Parkland. (And at Bethesda, too.) It was likely NOT a blown-out exit wound; the Z film wasn't altered, etc."Thanks for posting this, Pat. I was honored to get to know Gary in the '90s and will always respect his opinions on these matters more than any message board theorist.
-
4 hours ago, Matt Allison said:
There's no other film that shows the right rear of Kennedy's head.
Not in evidence now, no. But how could conspirators be sure one wouldn't surface at some point?
4 hours ago, Matt Allison said:And a word of friendly advice: trying to debate this issue with mockery and denial will just make you look bad.
I'm not mocking anything. I'm trying to understand the logic of (poorly?) editing only one of the films without knowing if other films/photos would surface and render the original alteration exposed as fake for all to see.
4 hours ago, Matt Allison said:What people expect is an explanation for why it looks like the way it does.
The people who have allegedly proven the Zapruder film to be a forgery have been working on an explanation for more than a decade, and their claims have not been subjected to peer review. I'll be curious to see what they come up with.
-
1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:
I'm open to hearing any explanations, but I believe the onus is now on the deniers to explain away what we see here.
If "plotters" painted a "black patch" onto Kennedy's head in the Zapruder film, how could they be confident that other films and photos taken in the Plaza that day wouldn't immediately expose their obvious forgery? How could they afford to take that risk? Further, how can any "logarithmic" analysis have validity unless it is applied to the actual original film (or a first generation copy)? Otherwise, we're in Tom Wilson territory ...
-
54 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Nevertheless, it is bizarre that the police arrested three common hobos. Even more bizarre is they kept them locked up for four days. Even though they had captured their prime suspect and then let him get killed.
I don't find it bizarre in the least that three strange men found in the middle of the crime scene were taken into custody, nor do I find it bizarre that they were held for several days while the Dallas Police had their hands full with much more important matters.
-
2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:
To the extent that he speculated, Prouty thought Lansdale, using his public relations and covert operations background, may have been assigned to create cover stories and red herrings - such as the bizarre march of the tramps.
While you might find the tramps arrest "bizarre," thanks to the research of Mary and Ray LaFontaine, we know definitively that the three tramps in the photographs were, in fact, actual tramps - and not CIA agents or anything of the sort.
-
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:
My post that you responded to had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the H&L theory.
You said: "Because to WC apologists, all CTers promote far-fetched beliefs." Before we go further, let's be clear: Is that actually your belief? Or rather, were you just mocking Jeremy's comment about moderators?
-
Just now, Leslie Sharp said:
Ron was gracious enough to link to the relevant forum discussion.
And then I linked you to another thread here. Is that enough for you?
1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:Oswald's frequent references to those personal experiences that informed his politics provides insight into what he was cognizant of in 1963, including racial segregation n America.
You've got to be joking if you think you can somehow extrapolate that to accurately interpret his movements inside the theater. That's not how real research is conducted.
2 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:You continue to reveal how unqualified you are to contribute to threads focused on specifics of the investigation.
And you truly do not have a clue what you're talking about in that regard.
-
4 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:
Jonathan, you made the assertion and cited Douglass so I think the burden is on you?
What "assertion" ? You asked about two Oswalds in the theater and I told you it was mentioned in Douglass' book. What else is it that you'd like me to do?
4 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:
Oswald born in New Orleans grew up in the South and would be cognizant of the significance of heading to the balcony; he would only do so if in solidarity to the African American community OR to meet someone in the dark of the balcony.Total and complete speculation. Neither you nor anyone other than Oswald himself can say for sure what he "would be cognizant" of.
-
Texas Theater employee Butch Burroughs' credibility on the issue of Oswald's movements/arrest is also debated here:
-
2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
I said nothing about the three tramps. Are you starting a new debate with yourself?
As for Hunt losing his libel trial-- based on the alleged Corson/Marchetti story-- was Hunt able to establish that he was not in Dallas on 11/22/63?
Who cares if he was able to establish it or not? You certainly cannot establish it one way or the other either. The only "evidence" I'm aware of ever being presented that Hunt was there was the mistaken identification of him as one of the tramps. Are you aware of any other actual evidence to support his presence in Dallas that day?
-
14 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:
Can you be more specific, Jonathan? Appealing to the authority of Douglass doesn't do him justice. Please provide detail.
Detail of what? It's in his book which I don't have it handy, so if you're curious, you can check it for yourself. It has also been discussed in many prior forum threads, which can be searched.
15 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:Also, do you know why an Oswald would head for the balcony of a movie theatre in a still highly segregated city?
I have no idea, and neither can anyone else other than Oswald himself. We have no choice but to speculate, which leads nowhere.
-
7 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:
@Jim Hargrove Can you refresh my memory as it's been years since I studied Armstrong and I don't have a copy of his work at hand. Does he address the possibility of two Oswalds in play during the arrest at the Texas Theatre?
That was discussed in Jim Douglass' book but there are ample other explanations for the alleged incident therein that do not involve a secret, decades-long government-funded doppelganger program.
-
19 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:
The two-Oswald project was quite real. The evidence for two Oswalds runs like a river through the entire decade leading up to the assassination of JFK.
No, it actually was not real in the slightest, which is why it is the laughingstock of the JFK research community. There is absolutely ZERO hard evidence supporting the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald had a Hungarian-born, Russian-speaking doppelganger. Any "sightings" or alleged impersonations of Oswald fall into a completely different category than that nonsense.
-
For additional background on the actual three Dealey Plaza tramps, click here.
-
2 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:
Where was E. Howard Hunt on 11/22/63?
Wasn't that the subject of a libel lawsuit that Hunt lost?
So what? That in and of itself is not in any way proof that he was physically in Dallas that day. And by the way, he WON the suit originally.
the logic of Zapruder film alteration
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Irrelevant. It is still just one of many assassination film and photo records, and they all form a self-authenticating whole. You cannot alter one without giving away the whole game.
This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the Zapruder film was altered or not.
Roger, this is nonsense. First of all, why have shooters firing from the front in the first place if you're trying to frame an assassin allegedly firing from the rear?
They have been addressed directly, repeatedly, for decades by the top researchers in this case, the majority of whom reject this fanciful mass alteration theorizing. Given available technology, there is no possible way the Zapruder film could have been altered to the extent some people believe.