Jonathan Cohen

Your wild speculation in the "Brian Bacchus / Ruth Paine" thread includes: "She kept secrets for the CIA because that is what CIA employees do. She kept secrets for the government coverup because she was told that there was evidence that the assassination was an international plot, and the government was doing whatever the could to prevent a war from occurring because of that evidence." Is that not tantamount to saying she lied to investigators when testifying about those very matters?

Please don't back off! The status quo here is in dire need of disruption.

Agreed!

That's right. Never mind all that, because it's not the subject of this thread.

I have read them. And I think your interpretations of them are complete nonsense.

So you're claiming those adjectives can't possibly be an accurate use of the English language in this case, and that they were only included to make her and other assassination plotters look bad?

You explained nothing. You made a complete guess about "painting" and rephotographing frames. That's not good enough, and really only proves that you have zero actual evidence to support your outlandish claims.

There's nothing impossible about it -- you just think it is. You have the burden of proof to explain how it was done. You can't just make a claim of this type and then wave away any actual explanation for how it happened.

I wish you were joking, but I know you aren't. Please explain to all of us here how a conspirator "painted" over the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository? If they would go to those lengths, why not just destroy the entire film? Your insistence on massive fakery of the evidence defies all logic.

So once again, the implication is that all the evidence regarding Oswald's rifle purchase was falsified. Is that what you are claiming?

Then why did nearly every Parkland doctor confirm the veracity of the autopsy photographs, which show no blowout wound low on the back of the head?

Chris, forgive me if I've missed this in your prior posts, but what's your take on the identity of the Prayer Man figure, and what if anything can be done amongst the research community to help come to a consensus on this point?

What eyewitness "errors" are you referring to regarding Ruth Paine?

I didn't say you said anything about Armstrong's theory. You asked what people believe regarding Oswald's language proficiency. I linked you to two previous threads here, one of which tries to tie said proficiency to "Harvey and Lee." Happy to ignore you too!

This has been covered at length on the forum previously, without any need for John Armstrong's idiotic doppelganger theory, which is, as usual, destroyed in this specific thread. It is clear that Lee and Marina communicated exclusively in Russian.

Out of curiosity, why does anybody ascribe some conspiratorial significance to the notion that Ruth disliked Lee? As you point out, he was an abusive husband at worst and an ungrateful houseguest at best. Is Ruth not entitled to her opinion on this matter, whether we or anybody else agree with it?

Not a single one of these points negates the possibility that the real Lee Oswald was actually in Mexico City at the time.

Indeed he does make a good argument. Leslie Sharp should be arriving any minute to claim Savastano is wrong and only "Coup in Dallas" tells the Souetre story accurately ...

Show me where I ever said any such thing? Because I never did. There are perfectly logical alternative explanations to your nonsense above, including that any plot to specifically set up Oswald would not have been undertaken after and until he'd (quite innocently) taken the job at the TSBD. The plot needn't have required his specific presence along the motorcade route. It just required some patsy's presence. It could have been anyone. And with that in mind, your jumbled logic requiring Ruth Paine and Linnie Randle to be CIA agents falls apart.

Nobody "got" Oswald anywhere other than himself, by going to the job interview.

The faulty logic at play here is truly breathtaking.

Give me a break with your resurfacing of this nonsense. It does absolutely nothing to further study of the case.

A wonderful idea, Greg, but I think we all know not to hold our breath as far as anything involving Albarelli is concerned ..

Per Wiki: The episodes identified three men as the assassins of Kennedy: deceased drug trafficker Lucien Sarti and two living men (Roger Bocagnani and Sauveur Pironti). All three were later revealed to have strong alibis: Sarti was undergoing medical treatment in France, another was in prison at the time, and the third had been in the French Navy. One of the two living men threatened to sue, and Central Television's own subsequent investigation into the allegations revealed they were "total nonsense". Turner justified his failure to interview one of the accused on the grounds that the individual was "too dangerous". Turner was censured by the British Parliament. The Independent Broadcasting Authority forced Central Television to produce a third episode dedicated to the false allegations, which aired on November 16, 1988, which was later referred to as a "studio crucifixion" of Turner and his inaccuracies.

Sigh. An “orchestrated operation” ? By whom, exactly? You are aware that the claims about French involvement first widely aired in “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” were so wildly incorrect (and libelous) that the episode was retracted, right ?