Jonathan Cohen

I'm not going to let you derail this thread. But since you keep making stupid accusations about me, I will point out once again that I don't have a "side" in this case, other than to weed out the "Harvey and Lee"-style, complete and utter nonsense beloved by so many members of this forum.

I never said that. I am merely giving a signal boost to a presentation that is rich with original research and analysis -- the kind of thing we could use a lot more of around here.

Yawn.

"The high bar" ? That "high bar" apparently means not allowing the research community access to the "datebook" to determine the alleged "authenticity" for themselves, while simultaneously attacking anyone who expresses (perfectly reasonable) doubts. Until that happens, proceeding as if the Lafitte story is true is utter folly.

In case people have not seen it yet, it can be viewed here. This is one of the most thorough, interesting and well-researched presentations I have seen on an assassination-related topic in many years. Regardless of where you stand on the identity of the Prayer Man figure, it's refreshing to see new work presented by people who are serious about resolving key issues in the case without simply claiming every piece of evidence is fake or altered.

And does it not worry you that Kennedy is an anti-vaccine, anti-science nutjob perpetuating preposterous conspiracy theories at every turn?

Why should he, or anyone else, be given a free pass to disseminate blatant falsehoods and reintroduce nonsense such as the story of Tosh Plumlee?

So are you claiming that if such an examination had occurred, Ruth’s “lies” would have crumbled for all to see? I don’t get why you’re fixated on this as it pertains specifically to the Paines.

And your problem with this is... what, exactly?

Oh really? Earlier in this same thread, you said, "Well of course Ruth Paine was a CIA asset. Either she was or Linnie Mae Randle was." The use of the phrase "of course" hardly indicates that you believe something to be "hypothetical."

Total nonsense, as always .. and an embarrassment that you keep repeating this.

Ok so in other words, the author is claiming “June Cobb” was not actually a distinct, real person, but rather an amalgam of different clandestine operatives?

While I wait for the hardcover to arrive, can Greg or someone else explain whether the author truly claims Jerrie and June Cobb were the same person, or simply that their individual clandestine activities were somehow merged so as to create the impression that they were the work of one individual?

Couldn't Michael's reference to a "clutch" here just be a catch-all for any means of shifting gears, whether the car is automatic or manual? In other words, even an automatic transmission requires manual manipulation to change from Park to Drive, Drive to Reverse, and etc.

You can trumpet "circumstantial" evidence until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that your argument for Ruth Paine and/or Linnie Mae Randle being CIA agents is beyond weak. Says the person who believes every piece of evidence in the case has been faked or altered, and believes in Lee and Marguerite Oswald doppelgangers ...

No, I don't find it odd in the least, particularly because there's no evidence whatsoever that Frazier is lying about the trips on the 21st and 22nd. In what way do you think Frazier would have been furthering the "plot" by "telling Oswald" to go to Irving on the 21st? To somehow Jedi mind-trick him into suddenly deciding to assassinate President Kennedy the next day?

No, and anyone who believes that has clearly not studied the case.

It's a Thanksgiving miracle that some people actually believe this, particularly without a literal shred of proof.

Again, so what? Many people connected to the assassination in one way or another were not "properly" investigated by the authorities. Does that mean they were conspirators? Or even had anything useful to say? Of course it doesn't. So, I don't know what point you are trying to make.

Are you implying the absence of testimony from the Paines to post-Warren Commission official bodies is some indication of their complicity in the crime? Because it’s not …

Sorry, but this yet another "such and such knew someone and they were college classmates with someone and they once went out to lunch with someone else and so that means Ruth and Michael are CIA spies." There are numerous other dubious conclusions here, including that Ruth would have been "informing on Oswald to the FBI" by giving them the "Kostin" letter, that there's something suspicious about Michael Paine attending meetings with Oswald by groups with opposing ideologies (there isn't), and, even worse, that the Paines had "very limited interactions" with Oswald (total nonsense - Ruth probably spent as much time around Oswald in 1963 as any other human being).

Sandy Larsen also believes that this is not Billy Lovelady. Do you disagree?

Of course they don't, Matt, but that won't stop people here from accusing doubters of swallowing "the single-bullet theory and the lone-assassin tale." Maybe they were part of the same secret, decades-long, evil government doppelganger program which helpfully brought us both "Harvey" and "Lee" ?

But Sandy Larsen insists the man with the bald spot and red checkered shirt on the steps is NOT Billy Lovelady. Are you saying you disagree?

Says the guy who actually has no clue what "side" I'm on or what I believe, but sure, please go ahead making ignorant statements.