Jonathan Cohen

They were wrong that it was in the "right rear" portion of the head, and have admitted as such. What they observed was a tangential wound on the right side of the head -- exactly what is seen in both the Zapruder film and autopsy photos.

People who believe there was no massive alteration of the JFK medical evidence are hardly "holdovers." In fact, they are careful, scrupulous researchers who actually let the evidence dictate the findings, rather than swallowing the usual nonsense hook, line and sinker like so many people on this forum.

Thank you for reminding people about this, Pat. I hope they keep it in mind as they watch several of these doctors embellish/change their stories for the benefit of TV.

Is there a single JFK conspiracy theory you don't believe? Genuinely curious.

You've now been provided with multiple examples of this in the thread. Do you still deny that Plumlee's oft-changing story is full of nonsense?

A random man calmly standing in the railroad yards is casually theorized by you, despite ANY evidence whatsoever, as ... being a murderer? Good lord. What a joke.

Unfortunately, an alarming number of regular posters on this forum treat the concept of research this way on a daily basis. There is no conspiracy theory too loony for folks here to accept at face value, and it makes the community at large look extremely foolish.

Larry, as always, thank you for your clear-eyed assessment of Plumlee's outlandish and uncorroborated claims.

You are beyond wrong if you think this is what "most researchers believe." It speaks to your lack of understanding of who these researchers actually were and on what they based their conclusions.

Neither you nor "the Cronkite photo" have "proven" anything of the sort, and it speaks volumes that you are completely unable to explain how on god's green earth Altgens 6 could have actually been altered in the way you allege.

Right. So it would appear this entire argument is based on Sandy Larsen using a horrible copy of Altgens 6 as his source material.

Why not .. I'll play along. Please enlighten us by what actual means Carl Jones' face "was added to the original Altgens 6 photo" so that it evaded detection by every JFK researcher until you happened to come along. I'd really love to know.

Alan, can you unambiguously state the source for your above GIF from the Towner film?

The fact that you believe this proves how limited your understanding is not only of the history of the case but the key researchers thereof.

Not only is it my opinion, it's also the opinion of 99 out of every 100 credible JFK assassination researchers. The fact that nobody supports your alteration nonsense should tell you something about the quality of your work, but clearly it doesn't ...

Not sure I'm buying this. I'm not aware of any evidence Hosty and Oswald actually met in person before Nov. 22, 1963.

I have no agenda whatsoever than to dispel the nonsense you are peddling in this thread.

Oh, except for the NUMEROUS FILMS AND PHOTOS OF HIM WEARING IT ... He was mistaken. Your interpretation of these photos is 100% incorrect. You have ZERO proof of this. Literally zero.

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.

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.

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

Amen, Andrej.

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.