Jonathan Cohen

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

https://www.armitiere.com/livre/22797569-le-deuxieme-tireur-nouvelles-revelations-sur--cedric-meletta-bouquins

Not evidence. Also, Lee Farley surfaced all of this a decade ago - no LaFitte necessary!

Just now, Leslie Sharp said:

And you know that because ....?

Because there's zero hard evidence to support such a claim, including the unverified, unauthenticated "datebook."

37 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My point being that I hardly have trouble comprehending things. And in fact, am very good at solving puzzles... that's what I do best.

Not in the case of the Kennedy assassination!

3 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

And if, as claimed in this new revelation, Pugibet was a primary shooter ... who told him to get behind that fence?

Nobody, because he wasn't there.

13 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I find it impossible, incredible, and illogical to dismiss such specific, mutually corroborating eyewitness testimony based on autopsy photos that even Dr. Finck expressed doubts about. 

So, let me guess .. the massive wound on the right side of the head around the ear seen so clearly seen in the Zapruder film was .. faked?

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Mike,

The reason people like Pat and Jonathon often seem like LNers is they've been fooled by much of the coverup! The only difference between them and LNers is that LNers have been fooled by ALL the coverup.

I haven't been "fooled" by anything, and your belief that I have speaks volumes about your lack of comprehension. I've been studying the case for more than 30 years. I've spent multiple days at the National Archives reviewing documents and photos (including crystal clear slides of the Zapruder film, which prove the head wound was located primarily on the right side of the head around the ear). I've been an invited speaker in front of hundreds of people at assassination symposiums. I've collaborated with and befriended some of the most respected researchers to ever study the case. But sure, I'm the one who has been "fooled" ...

5 minutes ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

That suggests the coup leaders were in complete control shortly after the assassination and could do what they want at will.

Yet they were so powerful that, according to people like Sandy Larsen, they allowed their patsy Lee Oswald to be photographed on the steps in front of the Texas School Book Depository during the assassination? And allowed evil CIA spy Ruth Paine to give interviews for the next 60 years?

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I take it then, you believe that the ~20 Parkland doctors and nurses who said they saw the gaping hole in the right-rear portion of Kennedy's head, were all wrong.

They were wrong that it was in the "right rear" portion of the head, and have admitted as such. What they observed was a tangential wound on the right side of the head -- exactly what is seen in both the Zapruder film and autopsy photos.

34 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes, of course the debate is over regarding, among other things, the massive hole in the right rear portion of Kennedy's head and the back-of-head autopsy photo forgery. It's just that we have a few ideological anti-alteration holdovers who will never change their minds.

People who believe there was no massive alteration of the JFK medical evidence are hardly "holdovers." In fact, they are careful, scrupulous researchers who actually let the evidence dictate the findings, rather than swallowing the usual nonsense hook, line and sinker like so many people on this forum.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I am assuming this is the Parkland doctors footage, only re-cut to be more sexy. I have mentioned this before, but I was at a Lancer conference where three of those interviewed in this film spoke, along with James Jenkins and William Newman. NOT ONE of them said the far back of the head was blown out or that the autopsy photos are fakes. In fact the four who said they got a look at the wound ALL said the wound was by the ear, where it is shown in the photos.

Thank you for reminding people about this, Pat. I hope they keep it in mind as they watch several of these doctors embellish/change their stories for the benefit of TV.

On 11/12/2023 at 5:23 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

I, on the other hand, believe it was a blond Oswald imposter... just as Hoover, Sylvia Duran, Eusebio Azcue, and the Cuban DGI thought.

Is there a single JFK conspiracy theory you don't believe? Genuinely curious.

On 11/12/2023 at 2:50 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Can anybody give me an instance of Tosh substantially changing his story?

You've now been provided with multiple examples of this in the thread. Do you still deny that Plumlee's oft-changing story is full of nonsense?

A random man calmly standing in the railroad yards is casually theorized by you, despite ANY evidence whatsoever, as ... being a murderer? Good lord. What a joke.

3 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Gosh, I think this is about the first time I've seen someone reject doing research on a source making such spectacular claims.

Unfortunately, an alarming number of regular posters on this forum treat the concept of research this way on a daily basis. There is no conspiracy theory too loony for folks here to accept at face value, and it makes the community at large look extremely foolish.

2 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

I also did a chronological search of his statements about Dallas and it was obvious he had changed and elaborated his story over the years...considerably.

Larry, as always, thank you for your clear-eyed assessment of Plumlee's outlandish and uncorroborated claims.

14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And these anti-alterationists seem to think that only a few researchers are alterationists. Oh really? I need to point out the fact that most researchers believe (for good reason) that Kennedy had a blowout wound on the back of his head.

You are beyond wrong if you think this is what "most researchers believe." It speaks to your lack of understanding of who these researchers actually were and on what they based their conclusions.

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The Cronkite photo has already proven what I've said from the beginning of this thread (and known for years), that what most researchers believe to be Lovelady's left arm in Altgens 6 is really Carl Jones's arm and hand. And now the photo has proven that Carl Jones's face has been added.

Neither you nor "the Cronkite photo" have "proven" anything of the sort, and it speaks volumes that you are completely unable to explain how on god's green earth Altgens 6 could have actually been altered in the way you allege.

Right. So it would appear this entire argument is based on Sandy Larsen using a horrible copy of Altgens 6 as his source material.

56 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I believe that Carl Jones's face was added to the original Altgens 6 photo, possibly to cover up (or "mask) the coke bottle he was drinking from. Is that what you mean by mask?

Why not .. I'll play along. Please enlighten us by what actual means Carl Jones' face "was added to the original Altgens 6 photo" so that it evaded detection by every JFK researcher until you happened to come along. I'd really love to know.

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Alan, can you unambiguously state the source for your above GIF from the Towner film?

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Most JFKA researchers are alterationists.

The fact that you believe this proves how limited your understanding is not only of the history of the case but the key researchers thereof.

34 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It's just your opinion.

Not only is it my opinion, it's also the opinion of 99 out of every 100 credible JFK assassination researchers. The fact that nobody supports your alteration nonsense should tell you something about the quality of your work, but clearly it doesn't ...

Not sure I'm buying this. I'm not aware of any evidence Hosty and Oswald actually met in person before Nov. 22, 1963.

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

See? He's at it again.

This is what Mr. Cohen does. His agenda here is entirely a negative one.

I have no agenda whatsoever than to dispel the nonsense you are peddling in this thread.

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

There is no evidence that Billy Lovelady wore a red plaid shirt on 11/22.

Oh, except for the NUMEROUS FILMS AND PHOTOS OF HIM WEARING IT ...

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Billy Lovelady himself said he did not wear a red plaid shirt on 11/22.

He was mistaken.

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The red plaid shirt sported by Billy Lovelady in 1967 is not the same shirt as the one worn by the other guy on 11/22. The former has no pocket whereas the latter does. We have photographic proof of this.

Your interpretation of these photos is 100% incorrect.

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

We have photographic proof that the guy who did wear a red plaid shirt on 11/22 isn't Billy Lovelady. They are clearly different people.

There is more.

You have ZERO proof of this. Literally zero.