Jonathan Cohen

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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 ...

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.

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.

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