Jonathan Cohen

Sadly, "Coup d'Etat in America" is worthless as serious scholarship of the case.

1 minute ago, Larry Hancock said:

On another note I can say that Hosty was quite clear during his talk at a Lancer conference and later with me personally that his FBI buddies in MC told him in no certain terms that they  had heard Oswald was under surveillance in MC and had been photographed.

Which, if true, would naturally destroy the years-long insistence of many, many members of this forum that Oswald was never physically present in Mexico City...

13 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Just about everywhere.

Can you be more specific please?

The various oddities found on the tape are covered in great detail in Josiah Thompson’s “Last Second in Dallas.”

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But it's sad to see that John Newman is way off on what Mexico City was all about. For one, he thinks Oswald actually was in the Cuban consulate. I can't imagine what his explanation is for why there were no surveillance photos of him. But I'll keep my mind open.

You think just because there aren't surveillance photos of Oswald at the Cuban consulate that Oswald wasn't there? Guess that means you're intentionally ignoring the mountain of evidence proving he was.

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

OMG, you are so right Jonathan!  I mean, had Ruth Paine been a CIA asset, she simply would have admitted so! 

Your attempt at humor notwithstanding, there's not a shred of actual evidence that Ruth Paine was anything other than a Dallas housewife.

20 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

Ruth got Lee Oswald into a lot of trouble. In fact, it could be said she dotted every 'i' and crossed every 't' to cause as much trouble for him as possible while pretending to 'help'...

I think there are too many odd coincidences to buy into  the "ever-so-helpful" myth about Ruth...i

But if she was in fact a 'govt spy' as you suggest I am claiming, just whose 'govt' would she have been taking orders from? 

More complete nonsense. Ruth did nothing to Oswald that Oswald hadn't already set in motion himself.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yep. What she said.

 

Absolute nonsense. Ruth is on record as to why she copied the letter, and her reasons for doing so are perfectly legitimate without having to accuse of her of being a government spy. 

I greatly respect Dr. Newman and his work, but I am not buying these claims about James McCord.

31 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What I used is the average of multiple polls. It is known in the field of statistics that averages of polls give more accurate results. (Because of the "law of large numbers.")

Oh really? Can you cite a source for your claim that averaging polls is "known in the field of statistics" for giving "more accurate results" ? Because averaging an average does not in any way give an "accurate" result. To arrive at such, you'd need the actual raw data (total number of respondents, for example).

36 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

If she cannot get anything out of LAPD then they must have clamped down hard.

Why?

Because they're ... still investigating what actually happened? Not sure why that's so hard to believe ...

29 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

National Geographic is regarded as a CIA front, including by Mark Groubert. 

National Geographic is a CIA front? In 2023? Is EVERYTHING a big government conspiracy to you?

23 minutes ago, Lori Spencer said:

It’s rather an interesting coincidence (?) that the night before a heavily armed man was arrested at RFK’s Los Angeles speech, Kennedy gave a major TV interview about the Paul Landis revelations, called for a real investigation of the JFK Assassination and the release of all JFK Records Act files. 

Are you seriously suggesting that “they” sent an assassin the next day to kill Kennedy because of this “major TV interview?” Give me a break.

3 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Does it still work for you?

It works perfectly fine, as it did when you previously asked the same question, only to later admit it was an issue on your end because you were using a proxy ...

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Fiction doesn't belong on this forum unless to debunk it for being offered as "non-" 

Great! So that must mean we can look forward to never hearing about "Harvey and Lee" ever again!

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Duh - shows up to a campaign event uninvited and fully armed

I guarantee you many people have done exactly the same (especially in open carry states), without any intent to assassinate the given candidate....

3 hours ago, Lori Spencer said:

Lisa Pease and I spent the weekend researching the suspect, Adrian Paul Aispuro. 
 

Here’s what we know so far. 
 

He’s a weird one! 

Yawn ... he went bankrupt and believes in alien conspiracies? Why are you in such a rush to connect this person with an "assassination attempt" ?

22 minutes ago, Joseph Backes said:

Do you think he was there to get his autograph?

Joe

Joe, I don't know why he was there, and as of now, apparently neither does anybody else. So it's irresponsible for people to shout "assassination attempt!" at this juncture.

Robert Kennedy Jr. is "no conspiracy nut" ? Now that's hilarious ...

1 hour ago, Lori Spencer said:

 

"An apparent assassination attempt" ? Clickbait, much?

“The suspect never brandished the gun or threatened anyone," said the LAPD.

My goodness. This nonsense again? This preposterous theory has been debunked for years. And as for putting any faith whatsoever in Tom Wilson's alleged photo processing, the fact that his work never was and never can be properly peer reviewed should say everything one needs to know.

14 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

As veteran researcher and coauthor of Coup in Dallas Alan Kent knows, the question of Paul Landis' movements are germane to David Lifton's final investigation. 

Now that Landis' actions at Parkland have resurfaced, we can expand a bit further by sharing that Pierre Lafitte's records indicate the Lancelot Project clean up extended to Parkland, e.g. mention of "Dr. Duke."  

There is no such person as "Dr. Duke."

19 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

In fairness, Talbot is using Landis' revelation to apply further pressure on mainstream media, but what if Landis's mea culpa unravels under scrutiny that should have been applied from the outset to get ahead of the cynics? (obviously I'm projecting here ... Coup in Dallas should not have been published until we secured professional written authentication of the datebook, full stop.)

This should open the reporting floodgates: since there were clearly at least two shooters that day, who were they? Who did they work for?

By pursuing the mystery that continues to haunt America, the New York Times and the rest of the press can begin to win back its credibility. Now that the official version of the Kennedy assassination has been debunked, other more tantalizing stories beckon.

What are you talking about? Landis' story is being given PLENTY of scrutiny right now - have you failed to notice the half-dozen different threads here on the subject?

"Since it doesn't exist anymore?" Uh, no...

23 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

You're making my point, Charles.  Why would seasoned researchers who have exposed the ineptitude of DPD turn around and accept what could be read as Landis's belated mea culpa unconditionally? Why not "ask the questions"?

On what planet are "seasoned researchers" blindly accepting Landis' story "unconditionally" ? Nothing of the sort is happening. It's also bizarre for you to make such a statement when you're the one unwilling to engage in honest debate about the authenticity of the alleged datebook at the heart of "Coup in Dallas" ...