Jonathan Cohen

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.

Where to even begin? https://www.jfk-assassination.net/nagell1.htm

Are you serious? Who cares what a search engine labels them as. Are you actually trying to claim that there's no distinction between a dollar bill with a tear in it and a dollar bill that is torn completely into two or more pieces?

Haven't you ever had a torn dollar bill in your wallet that wasn't actually torn into two distinct pieces?

As with nearly every aspect of this case, there are perfectly plausible and reasonable alternative explanations for this sequence of events which do not require Ruth Paine to be a convenient CIA spy. Nagell made up plenty of stuff. I'm surprised any researcher considers him credible at this point.

I don't believe he's ever written one himself, although he has stated on this forum many times that he is "agnostic" about the validity of the theory.

One of the most unintentionally hilarious statements ever made on this forum, especially since it comes from someone who believes in evidence fakery to a preposterous level as the ludicrous "Harvey and Lee" doppelganger theory. You're the one pushing long-debunked misinformation.

Because this has turned into a pointless back and forth and it needs to stop. David Von Pein is a member in good standing of this forum, whether you like it or not. Nobody asked to hear what you "would have done" to him if you were a moderator at the time.

Great! If you're so satisfied that "many of us," including you, "know the answers to these questions," you can step out of the thread and let actual discussion flourish. And by the way, the book is called "Destiny Betrayed," not "Best Destiny" ...

Great. So you can stop bringing up the subject again and again?

So just because David Josephs espoused some theories about the nature of the Mexico City episode, we should just globally declare that it no longer bears any scrutiny or study?

We'll never know, as Dealey Plaza is a natural echo chamber and people claimed to have heard shots from multiple different directions. However, there's no way to deny shots were fired from behind, unless you can explain away rear entry wounds to both JFK and Connally's backs ...

So the History Channel retracted the episode and apologized for it for.... what reason, precisely?

Indeed. Instead, we have to deal with Sandy Larsen, for no apparent reason, trying to reopen an issue that was dealt with years ago. Move on.

You are wrong, as Ben Cole has pointed out. You have missed the distinction between Oswald being impersonated on the phone and him being physically present at the Soviet embassy, where he met Kostikov.

These things are not mutually exclusive. There's zero reason why Oswald could not have been in Mexico City while also being not guilty of the assassination.

Sibert to the HSCA in 1978: "When the body was first observed on the autopsy table, it was thought by the doctors that surgery had possibly been performed in the head area and such was reflected in my notes made at the time. However, this was determined not to be correct following detailed inspection and when the piece of bone found in the limousine was brought to the autopsy room during the latter stages of the autopsy." Secondly, that photo is in no way "proof" of surgical alteration. Once again, you consistently present things as fact that are absolutely not fact. It's nothing more than your theory, and one not supported by the actual evidence or the majority of serious researchers.