Jonathan Cohen

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.

5 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I feel sorry for you, Sandy. You are now in Alan's web of wild conspiracy. Of course, there was no blackening in Lovelady's figure.

I concur, Andrej. It's also instructive that this nonsense about massive film/photo alteration is not taken seriously by the large majority of serious assassination researchers, and is perpetually/rightfully ignored by major symposiums such as the ones taking place around the country later this month.

40 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The "impossible shadow" is present even on the superior copy that you found.

Somebody has blacked out Lovelady's right side.

How are we are supposed to remotely take seriously the photo analysis of Sandy Larsen, who claims, to the exclusion of any JFK assassination researcher known to mankind, that the person universally acknowledged as Billy Lovelady both outside the TSBD and in the Dallas jail WAS NOT ACTUALLY BILLY LOVELADY?

I agree with Greg and thank Tracy for sharing this article. Myers should be ashamed of this guilty-by-association piece of propaganda.

Really, really embarrassing, and sad. The JFK research community deserves better.

4 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

And Mr. Lovelady had been taken to DPD HQ in his plaid shirt:

But Sandy Larsen insists that this ISN'T Billy Lovelady.

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Your posts would be funny if not being damaging to the standing of this forum. You are now on your own with this thread; you would not hear to any arguments to the contrary of your views anyway. 

This thread and the one on Carl Jones's arm are the two biggest lows of Educational Forum.

Amen, Andrej.

51 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Since you know everything, how do you explain that Lovelady's right half is missing... it's all black.

I explain it by pointing out, yet again, that Alan Ford is using a poor quality image to draw absurd conclusions about what's happening therein. As Alex Wilson eloquently summarizes on ROKC, "it's the clumsy, counterproductive, sometimes downright amateurish and embarrassing efforts, coupled with the extravagant claims" to which serious researchers object.

27 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

I'm proposing that was the strategy of those who deleted Mr. Oswald's head: they targeted the clearer frames.

Good lord - does it ever end? Nobody "deleted" Oswald's head. Give us a break already.

1 hour ago, Alan Ford said:

"I, Jonathan Cohen, declare that the darkness down Billy Lovelady in the frame below is easily explained. Here's my explanation: ......................................................................."

The explanation is that you're using a poor quality reproduction of the film, rendering it largely useless for such analysis.

3 minutes ago, Richard Price said:

Jonathan, on the surface your reasoning seems (and is sound).  My question would be, How many of these photos/films have been "passed through" various agencies (CIA ["Time-Life"]/FBI/HSCA), examined,studied or in other ways and out of the hands of the owners.  I think all or virtually all were.  If the CIA was involved (I think they were), those at the top of the conspiracy to kill would be the same ones who could oversee the gathering and censorship of the visual evidence.  Those not involved would/could be manipulated by use of the "state secrecy" and internal classification.  After all, you wouldn't want to start WWIII by revealing something told to you by the top members of the intelligence agencies (especially in the 1960's/cold war era).  Once changes/edits/splices, etc. are in place you can't go back to the originals and no one has anything more than  a memory that the photo/film somehow looks different than it did originally.  I have seen, heard or read many accounts of the people having made the photos or films saying their memory of what they sent in is slightly different from what was returned.  Also, many were simply returned "damaged" by those darn professionals that handled the materials while in "official hands".  I feel this accounts for possible alteration in the (Keep It Simple Stupid/Ocams Razor) method.  Just my opinion though.

Richard, even if what you posit were true, it would still leave the plotters open to serious repercussions in the event that photos or films were only discovered years later (which happened on several occasions). There is truly no way to account for all the possible evidence when you start altering this film here, this photo there, etc. The whole thing is a house of cards which would collapse with even the slightest discontinuity.

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Continuity was achieved by overtly splicing,opaquing,excising, specific films/photos, which isn't rocket science.

All depends on what continuity clock you base your conclusions on.

Chris, you've got to be joking. Did the evil conspirators consist of full-time alterationists who spent decades fine-tuning their masterworks? You cannot possibly come up with a legitimate means by which these plotters could confidently alter one film and then achieve the needed continuity in the dozens and dozens of other films and photos capturing the same Dealey Plaza scenes.

1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

I'd imagine the $25,000 came from public donations and possibly sale of book/movie rights. If people mailed cash to Marina, this could be one reason why the Secret Service would have difficulty tracing the money.

This is correct, Gerry. Nothing nefarious to see here.

39 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Put two and two together. It's not rocket science.

It would be rocket science to successfully and covertly alter a film not seen by the general public in a way that somehow retained continuity with all the other films and photos taken in Dealey Plaza ...

7 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Spamming?  Please cite incidents of my "spamming."

I think you might ask why Hank's investigation causes some in the research community discomfort. 

Spamming = your incessant posting of the same "someone who worked for this company was nephews with this criminal and was the next door neighbor of this Nazi" fantasies about the Kennedy assassination. Don't flatter yourself either. Hank's investigation is not causing any serious researcher one nanosecond of "discomfort" because it's all based on a mountain of unrelated "connections" and an unverified, unauthenticated "datebook." I'm also not sure why you continue to be allowed to post using something other than your real name.

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

"Nobody", @Jonathan Cohen? Or do you mean the echo chamber you've create for yourself?

Nope, more or less nobody. The book, and your incessant spamming about it on this forum, are not taken remotely seriously by the vast majority of assassination researchers.

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Benjamin Cole

Continuity of the coup in Dallas . . . 

More complete and unrelated nonsense. No wonder nobody takes "Coup in Dallas" seriously.

15 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Now why in the world would Oswald have gone to Mexico City on his own initiative? 

For the exact reason he said : to get visas to travel first to Cuba and then to Russia.

15 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

This begs the question: If Oswald was a loner with no intel ties and no associates, why would anyone have bothered to impersonate him in Mexico City in a fake call to the Soviet Embassy and in fake visits to the Cuban Consulate?

To frame him.

1 hour ago, Alan Ford said:

Tell me what you think they've 'been illustrating', Mr. Cohen, and let's you and I debate the issue here together.

I'm trembling.

Tremble to your heart's content. I have no interest in debating with you based on your faulty photo interpretations. Perhaps the fine folks at ROKC are in a more sporting mood, so why not engage them directly?

Wasn't all this already a part of the 2018 film "The Parkland Doctors?" Dubious of this upcoming version of it, to say the least. For one thing, Dr. Goldstrich now claims both the head and throat shots were fired from behind.

3 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Yes, a black blob. I look forward to another piece of expert counter-analysis from you ~grin~

As for your parting question, Mr. Cohen, it efficiently demonstrates that your reading skills are on a par with your photo-analytical gifts 👍

The counter analysis is that you appear to have no idea what you're talking about, and people far more patient than I have been illustrating this for several days here.

4 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

It's the darndest thing, but there is a black blob hovering over this person's head:

A "black blob" ? Come on. Are you serious? And you realize of course that for you to claim this person is Oswald would mean he was NOT in the doorway when the shots were fired?

34 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Whether you like it or not, Mr. Cohen, Towner shows the thing being waved. It's a fact.

If you disagree with the above statement, I look forward to reading your counter-analysis of the relevant Towner frames. I'm sure it will be top notch. 👍

My analysis is that your interpretation of the films is wrong. Neither Billy Lovelady nor Lee Oswald were waving a flag on the front steps of the building, and they certainly were not in any kind of cahoots as assassination conspirators.