Jonathan Cohen

None of these points require conspiratorial intent on Ruth's part or mean that she engaged in any such behavior.

This is one of the most preposterous statements I've ever read on this forum. Where would you have liked the British to plop Israel down instead? The middle of the ocean?

And you, double-downing on your fancy new, meaningless term. There are perfectly logical and acceptable explanations for this particular piece of evidence. You just refuse to accept them because you conveniently wave off and dismiss any innocent rationale for Ruth Paine's behavior.

I didn't "miss" anything. Everything I said is valid about your beliefs.

I don't agree with Michael Griffith on much of anything other than his critiques of Fletcher Prouty, but the above is a hugely important point rarely mentioned in current discourse on this subject.

This is not how real research is conducted, on this or any other subject. You don't just decide that you "don't believe" in coincidence or Occam's razor, which is certainly the explanation for any bogus anomalies you are raising about the Oswald note in question.

As always, words of wisdom from Jeremy. There was no significant alteration to the film beyond the known damaged frames.

Yes, also possible. I personally have not seen evidence to support tit.

Yes, that is certainly within the realm of possibility. But there is ample evidence to suggest that even during the limited period Lee was around Marguerite post-Russia, he rarely if ever spoke with her in detail about his own life and what he was doing at any given time.

Tony, once again, I never said she fabricated that SPECIFIC usage. I am trying to make the point that she was known to do so before and after the assassination, and that all three of her sons did not like spending time with her because of it, among many other reasons.

Yes. Its usage in all of those scenarios was coincidental.

I'm not implying that. The point I am trying to make is that BEFORE and AFTER the assassination, she was known to embellish things and/or lie, particularly when they involved Lee (ie., her numerous misconceptions about Oswald's time in Russia being connected to some government spy work).

Yes. And then he barely had any contact with her from then until the day he died.

Tony, further to this line of discussion ... I am almost certain that Oswald, by choice, barely saw or communicated with Marguerite upon his return to Texas. So, even under the best of circumstances, she would not be in any position to comment with accuracy on what was going on in his life at that time.

What do you mean, prior to the assassination? In what capacity could that have possibly happened? A co-worker proactively going to the authorities to do ... what, exactly? I was referring to her numerous embellishments and outright lies in the 15-plus years that she lived following the murder.

That hardly means it was true, or that he even believed it himself.

My take is that Marguerite was a known li*r and embellisher, and as such anything she may have said to other people has to be taken with an enormous grain of salt. Have ANY of her tall tales ever proven to be true?

Exactly, Larry. These are two very different things.

Nonsense, as Larry has pointed out above.

There's zero hard evidence to support this, and a ton of it favoring the exact opposite conclusion.

Excellent point, and yes, they absolutely should.

Actually, nobody is saying that. What we're saying is that "torn" can clearly have more than one meaning. And in the absence of clarification, no one can definitively say whether the bill was torn in two or just simply torn but intact.

Indeed, and Jim has often praised the work of folks like Robert Charles Dunne, who has done more to destroy the idiotic "Harvey and Lee" theory than just about any other poster here.

Everything's a lie, everything's fake. Pretty convenient to just trot that out as an excuse every time someone challenges you on your claims.

Since you didn't actually answer my question, I can then only conclude that you do not see any distinction between an intact dollar bill with a tear in it and a dollar bill that is torn completely into two or more pieces.