Jonathan Cohen

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

I should add that your side never hesitates to claim that pro-conspiracy evidence has been faked or doctored when you cannot deal with it otherwise. I have lost count of how many witnesses you guys have accused of fabricating their stories for fame and/or gain. You guys have accused some of the medical witnesses of purposely producing false wound diagrams (while claiming that the other troublesome wound diagrams are "mistaken"). You guys claim that the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter was forged. You guys claim that Jim Garrison and his staff fabricated interview reports (such as Lou Ivon's report on his last interview with David Ferrie). You guys claim that Garrison's office and/or Officer Habighorst fabricated the "Alias: Clay Bertrand" entry on Clay Shaw's fingerprint card. You guys claim that the Lafitte datebook is a hoax. And on and on we could go.

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.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You're okay with Bart's contention that Oswald's alibi was that he was outside watching the motorcade? And that that the second floor encounter between Officer Baker and Oswald never took place? That it was all a fabrication?

 

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.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Mary Haverstick has an interesting segment on Ruth Paine in her new book A Woman I Know. Haverstick implies that Ruth Paine was a CIA asset assigned to manipulate and monitor the Oswalds. Among many other things, Haverstick, having grown up among Quakers, questions Ruth Paine's Quaker credentials. 

Yawn.

On 11/16/2023 at 9:13 PM, Leslie Sharp said:

And presumably, you'll be alble to meet the high bar set by Albarelli in his public testament as to provenance and authenticity of the Pierre Lafitte datebook.

"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.

On 11/27/2023 at 9:28 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Does it not worry you that very few members here support RFK JR? 

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

12 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Give the guy credit and a free pass for now. 

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?

18 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jonathan, under Sprague there was a definite possibility she would have been called to testify. Because that is the kind of lawyer Sprague was, very experienced in homicide cases.  Check out the Jock Yablonski case.

Now with what happened to the HSCA, go ahead and show me her examination. 

 

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.

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

And at the time of Sprague's guidance, Jerry Policoff told me that he saw Ruth Paine at the archives going through files.  I think it is logical to assume she was looking at her past statements.

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

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What I said is obviously hypothetical.

 

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."

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Ruth's and LHO's handlers may or may not have been one and the same, but regardless they were both under control of the plotters.

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

25 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Author does not say what happened to the real June Cobb. Author says the “CIA” June Cobb who worked for Castro and testified to Congress and was in Mexico City and maybe something with Oswald’s trip there, was actually Jerrie Cobb claiming to be June Cobb, not the real June Cobb. 

So it is a selective impersonation theory in this case but not necessarily of someone still living. 

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.

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It's called circumstantial evidence Jonathan, something you apparently don't understand the importance of.

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.

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Your denigration of those of us who connect the circumstantial dots is essentially antiscience malfeasance.

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 ...

27 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Don't you find it odd that Frazier took Oswald to Irving on the 21st and brought him back to the TSBD on the 22nd, as if he was tasked to make sure Oswald was at the TSBD?  What if Frazier is lying about Oswald asking him to take him to Irving?  What if Frazier was telling Oswald that he should go to Irving on the 21st?

Since you have studied the case, I assume, what am I missing?

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?

28 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Could it be that Frazier was Oswald's handler?

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

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well of course Ruth Paine was a CIA asset. Either she was or Linnie Mae Randle was. Because the plotters had to get the patsy into the building where the shooting was planned to take place, and those two women admitted to getting Oswald into the TSBD. This isn't rocket science.

Not only that, but the owner or manager of the building must also be a CIA asset. I'll bet the TSBD was a CIA cover.

 

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

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jonathan,

I am implying little or nothing.

What I am saying is pretty simple.

Did the HSCA investigate Ruth and Michael? No.

Did the ARRB call them in for questioning? No.

Then that leaves people like Greg Parker to investigate things like the Hootkins episode, since they did not.

Recall, that incident was before the assassination.

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.

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jonathan:

Can you show me any investigation into Ruth and Michael done by the HSCA?

Can you show me where Ruth was even questioned by the HSCA?

Can you show me any interview by the ARRB of Ruth Paine?

Let me know when you find this stuff.  Thanks.

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).

17 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Here's Mr. Oswald being led in to the Homicide Office after his arrest. The time is 2pm.

He is taken past the seated Mr. Lovelady.

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

4 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

These women sure don't look like the same lady to me. At all.

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" ?

3 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

The Martin film shows that precise system in operation (Mr. Truly is standing behind the glass [right of screen]).
Mr. Lovelady is standing on the steps.

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?

19 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Says the guy who still swallows the single-bullet theory and the lone-assassin tale. Did you even read the article or just skim over it? Or did you even open the link? Something suspicious was obviously going on at Redbird Airport, and your side waves aside the Babushka Lady with bland dismissals.

It doesn't help matters that we still have some conspiracy theorists who continue to peddle Beverly Oliver's claim that she was the Babushka Lady.

Naturally, you assume Mary Haverstick is lying or that Cobb lied to her about being the pilot of the plane that was idling on the runway at Redbird that day.

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.