Jonathan Cohen

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What? You are arguing with me about whether I said something or not?

I repeat, I've never said a word about the things you said I did in your first post.

Since you insist on arguing with me, I demand that you retract what you said. Either put up or shut up.

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?

3 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I've actually been told to politically  back off here asking serious questions of you on these matters.

I'm left to think it's too disrupting to the forum status quo.

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

11 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Yes, just more nothing Jean!

If it's not innuendo, it's phony claims of charges that would never hold up.

Agreed!

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Nah, never mind all that. 

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

25 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Read the documents, then go find the facts, Jonathan.

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

28 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Notice the subtle derision:  “affair” “hazy” “despondent”. 

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?

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I just explained it!

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.

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

How do you explain the impossible shadow?

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.

42 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 The only way I can think of for the impossible shadow to be present is that it was painted* by the coverup artists in order to conceal something.

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.

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've never claimed that the postal money order cannot have been processed given that there are no bank stamps on it.

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

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

But most of the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses described seeing the same large right-rear head wound that Clint Hill observed up-close for several minutes as he rode on the back of the limousine on the way to the hospital. Naturally, there is some minor variation in their descriptions, but their accounts describe a large wound in the rear part of the head and not a huge wound over the right ear. 

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?

31 minutes ago, Chris Scally said:

No thanks, Steve! I lived in the UK for 15 great years, but I wouldn't want to go back there now. I enjoy the quiet life in the countryside these days.

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?

On 12/3/2023 at 10:08 PM, Miles Massicotte said:

I am seeing this crop up a lot on this forum, especially in regards to certain topics where conflicting eyewitness evidence is the norm, including: the medical evidence (Parkland vs. Bethesda), the Tippet shooting, and the veracity of Ruth Paine.

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

1 hour ago, Richard Booth said:

I didn't say anything about Armstrong's theory. I referred to his research, which are two different things.

As far as I can tell you're just being argumentative so I will ignore you

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!

On 12/2/2023 at 8:14 AM, Richard Booth said:

What do people here think about Oswald's Russian language abilities, whether or not he spoke Russian or concealed that ability when in Russia, and for that matter how do you think that Oswald and Marina communicated? 

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.

45 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

Ultimately where I am going with this is that I don't think Ruth minded to see Lee in jail. I don't think she conspired to get him there at all, but I think she would have been happy to see him put behind bars, as he was an abusive husband, and Ruth had fond feelings towards Marina. That's all that I will say on the subject for now.

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?

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And Silvia Duran said he was an imposter.

And Consul Azcue said he was an imposter.

And Cuban intelligence said he was an imposter.

There are no photos of Oswald visiting the consulates, even though there were a number of surveillance cameras that would have taken photos of Oswald had he gone there.

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

26 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

Savastano makes a pretty good argument against Souetre having had any involvement:

https://www.tpaak.com/the-french-deception

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 ...

18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So Jonathan believes that the CIA planned an assassination involving Oswald, but merely hoped that he would get a job at a place where he or someone could shoot the president.

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.

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

How do you think the CIA plotters got Oswald into the building they needed him to be?

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

26 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The strongest evidence of Ruth having worked for the CIA is as follows:

1. The Mexico City incident (among others) proves that CIA plotters targeted Oswald as a gunman or patsy for the assassination.
2. The CIA plotters had to get Oswald employed at their chosen sniper location, the TSBD.
3. Ruth Paine and Linnie Mae Randle admitted that they suggested Oswald take a job at the TSBD.
4. Therefore Ruth and/or Linnie Mae were CIA assets under the control of the plotters.

When one considers all the other circumstantial evidence, it becomes clear that Ruth Paine was certainly the CIA asset here. Linnie Mae might have been as well... but that is definitely uncertain. IMO it is more likely that she lied for the government coverup, and actually never suggested the TSBD for Oswald.

Q.E.D. Ruth Paine was definitely a CIA asset. The circumstantial evidence is too strong to conclude otherwise.

 

The faulty logic at play here is truly breathtaking.

37 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

LOL, the Commission was an object lesson in how to convict a dead man who did not have an attorney in absentia.

Let us not forget what Billy Kelly said, if the Patriot Act would have applied, the Paines would have been waterboarded. Remember that is Bill, not me.

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

30 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Maybe that could be done over the next few days if a gatekeeper might permit it.

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

3 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

I think you are confused.

IIRC, the episode the history channel retracted was one of the last ones - concerning LBJ.

Would you happen to have a link about a retraction for the 'French' episode?  It was a completely different one from the LBJ one.

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.

13 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

The  record will soon be set straight by unraveling in the specifics how decades later respected researchers fell victim to the orchestrated operation meant to conceal their role.

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 ?