Jonathan Cohen

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I take it then, you believe that the ~20 Parkland doctors and nurses who said they saw the gaping hole in the right-rear portion of Kennedy's head, were all wrong.

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.

34 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes, of course the debate is over regarding, among other things, the massive hole in the right rear portion of Kennedy's head and the back-of-head autopsy photo forgery. It's just that we have a few ideological anti-alteration holdovers who will never change their minds.

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.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I am assuming this is the Parkland doctors footage, only re-cut to be more sexy. I have mentioned this before, but I was at a Lancer conference where three of those interviewed in this film spoke, along with James Jenkins and William Newman. NOT ONE of them said the far back of the head was blown out or that the autopsy photos are fakes. In fact the four who said they got a look at the wound ALL said the wound was by the ear, where it is shown in the photos.

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.

On 11/12/2023 at 5:23 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

I, on the other hand, believe it was a blond Oswald imposter... just as Hoover, Sylvia Duran, Eusebio Azcue, and the Cuban DGI thought.

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

On 11/12/2023 at 2:50 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Can anybody give me an instance of Tosh substantially changing his story?

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.

3 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Gosh, I think this is about the first time I've seen someone reject doing research on a source making such spectacular claims.

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.

2 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

I also did a chronological search of his statements about Dallas and it was obvious he had changed and elaborated his story over the years...considerably.

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

14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And these anti-alterationists seem to think that only a few researchers are alterationists. Oh really? I need to point out the fact that most researchers believe (for good reason) that Kennedy had a blowout wound on the back of his head.

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.

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The Cronkite photo has already proven what I've said from the beginning of this thread (and known for years), that what most researchers believe to be Lovelady's left arm in Altgens 6 is really Carl Jones's arm and hand. And now the photo has proven that Carl Jones's face has been added.

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.

56 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I believe that Carl Jones's face was added to the original Altgens 6 photo, possibly to cover up (or "mask) the coke bottle he was drinking from. Is that what you mean by mask?

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.

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

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

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Most JFKA researchers are alterationists.

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.

34 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It's just your opinion.

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.

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

See? He's at it again.

This is what Mr. Cohen does. His agenda here is entirely a negative one.

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

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

There is no evidence that Billy Lovelady wore a red plaid shirt on 11/22.

Oh, except for the NUMEROUS FILMS AND PHOTOS OF HIM WEARING IT ...

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Billy Lovelady himself said he did not wear a red plaid shirt on 11/22.

He was mistaken.

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The red plaid shirt sported by Billy Lovelady in 1967 is not the same shirt as the one worn by the other guy on 11/22. The former has no pocket whereas the latter does. We have photographic proof of this.

Your interpretation of these photos is 100% incorrect.

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

We have photographic proof that the guy who did wear a red plaid shirt on 11/22 isn't Billy Lovelady. They are clearly different people.

There is more.

You have ZERO proof of this. Literally zero.

5 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I feel sorry for you, Sandy. You are now in Alan's web of wild conspiracy. Of course, there was no blackening in Lovelady's figure.

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.

40 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The "impossible shadow" is present even on the superior copy that you found.

Somebody has blacked out Lovelady's right side.

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.

4 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

And Mr. Lovelady had been taken to DPD HQ in his plaid shirt:

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

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Your posts would be funny if not being damaging to the standing of this forum. You are now on your own with this thread; you would not hear to any arguments to the contrary of your views anyway. 

This thread and the one on Carl Jones's arm are the two biggest lows of Educational Forum.

Amen, Andrej.

51 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Since you know everything, how do you explain that Lovelady's right half is missing... it's all black.

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.