Jonathan Cohen

17 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Like what?

Where to even begin?

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/nagell1.htm

Just now, Bill Fite said:

You're question is irrelevant to the discussion.

Are those images from DuckDuckGo labeled torn or not?

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?

12 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

Friday, September 20, 1963, was also the day that Ruth Paine arrived at 4905 (or 4907) Magazine after corresponding with Marina about having her come live with Ruth and children until and through the birth of their next child in mid-October. The dates work perfectly; Ruth arrives just in time to remove Marina and June from Oswald's care and sight. Ruth and children stay the weekend and corroborate the fact that Marina's "husband" was there all weekend. Finally, on Sept 22nd, Oswald helps load Ruth's car and on the morning of Sept 23 says goodbye to Marina and June.

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.

12 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

September 20th is a most interesting day … on September 20, Richard Nagell sent a registered letter from El Paso, Texas to Hoover  and informed him that President Kennedy would be assassinated  in a conspiracy that involved Lee Harvey Oswald. After mailing the letter, which included Oswald's description, aliases, and current address, Nagell walked into the State National Bank and fired two shots into the ceiling.

You just can't make this stuff up ... 

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.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I cannot allow misinformation to flourish.

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.

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I'm not the one bringing it up over and over. It is others who claim I'm wrong who keep bringing it up.

Why did you just bring it up?

 

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.

42 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

(BTW, many of us know the answers to these questions. Everybody should read Best Destiny by Jim DiEugenio. Or Peter Dale Scott's Phase One, Phase Two article on Mary Ferrell Foundation.)

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" ...

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Indeed. Copyright infringement happens all the time in this day and age. But most people don't care because they don't lose anything (like money) over most infringements.

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

32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Look, we have been through all this when David Josephs was here.

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?

7 minutes ago, Donald Willis said:

Or (harmless explanation) is the sound of a shot from above just muffled by that tree?

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 ...

20 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

Most of the players were dead 20 years ago. Dead people can't be libeled.

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

4 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

As long as nobody complains... I'd simply let it be... 

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.

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Even John Newman doesn't believe Oswald visited Kostikov. He knows (as we all do, except for you) that the "Oswald" who called the Russian Embassy was an imposter.

In this article, John Newman writes:

...CIA intercepts showed that someone impersonated Oswald in phone calls made to the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate and linked Oswald to a known KGB assassin — Valery Kostikov — whom the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year.

 

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.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

If you buy this show, then  you also think that Oswald killed Kennedy because that is what they concluded. They also said that Duran met Oswald.

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.

32 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Second, the photo below is proof that Kennedy's head was altered somewhere between Parkland Hospital and the hospital in Bethesda. Humes' pre-autopsy note of "surgery to the head" is further proof of the alteration.

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.

52 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Had I been admin at the time, I would have NOT allowed DVP back on the site without his destroying his copy of the material first.

Thank goodness you weren't !

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Much of what Turner revealed about the JFKA and the major players involved in his TMWKK series was never known before and would have never been known except for it's creation.

Much of what he revealed? Hrm.. such as the Badgeman nonsense, the unverified and highly dubious testimony of Gordon Arnold and Ed Hoffman, the libelous claims about Johnson's involvement, the wildly incorrect pronouncements about three Europeans having been involved in the shooting and, worst of all, giving Judyth Baker a platform to spew falsehoods? This is hardly worthy of praise.

On 12/7/2023 at 8:23 PM, Alan Ford said:

I believe Mr. Oswald was slated to carry out a 'pro-Castro' stunt of some description out front (just off the steps) just after the firing of shots.

Is that why he deviated from his routine and showed up unannounced and a day early at Ruth Paine's house on Nov. 21?

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But admittedly I am stumped by the early call to snatch the body in order to modify the head damage.

Why do you consistently present things as fact that are absolutely not fact? It's your THEORY that the purpose of "snatching" the body was to "modify the head damage." There is absolutely ZERO evidence to support this.

16 hours ago, Greg Burnham said:

It's hard to believe that this episode was first aired 20 years ago as of last month! Indeed, in my interview, I even referenced “if they’re still covering it up in 20 years…” and now, here we are.

You mean the episode that was so inaccurate and libelous that the History Channel retracted it and pulled it from circulation?

"The History Channel recognizes that 'The Guilty Men' failed to offer viewers context and perspective, and fell short of the high standards that the network sets for itself. The History Channel apologized to its viewers and to Mrs. Johnson and her family for airing the show." 

Thank you for posting this, Bill. Very informative.

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

He obviously thought the question was, were you in the building that day. Or maybe during the motorcade.

This is "obvious" only to you, who likes to make sweeping conclusions based on nothing more than your own personal opinions.

1 hour ago, Gene Kelly said:

You have Ruth and Michael Paine producing daming evidence on Oswald (i.e., the rifle, Walker letter, Minox camera, Mexico City).

What do you mean "producing" ? All of those items BELONGED to Oswald, whom the Paines generously offered to live in their home. What did you expect them to do while the police were searching every nook and cranny of the place? Throw them in the trash? Burn them?

18 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

What is in need of disruption Jonathan?

Don't tell me that ridiculous Kirkian charge that somehow the overthrow of Goulart was a JFK/LBJ operation?

When in fact, both Kai Bird and A. J. Langguth said it was not.

If JFK had been part of the club, he would not have gotten killed.  Its that simple.  LBJ was part of the club, e.g. David Rockefeller's, and this is why he went along with the Kennedy cover up and had David in his office to discuss McCloy being the point man on the coup.

Jim, I have no idea what you're talking about and as such was certainly not implying anything about that vis-a-vis "disruption." The point I intended to make is that, in my opinion, there is far too much discussion here about idiotic, long-debunked theories. I am hoping many of the regular posters at Greg Parker's forum, where many aspects of the case are actively researched anew, will join here once Greg winds things down.