Jonathan Cohen

Because Marina wrote it and he was trying to protect her ?

I was wondering when Sandy was going to trout the old "all the evidence is fake" trope as he often does when discussing the Oswald doppelganger nonsense. There was no "blowout" to the back right of JFK's head -- only the wound on the top and right side, which is manifestly apparent in both the Zapruder film and autopsy photos.

Thanks for posting this, Chris. If I recall, David Lifton has claimed that Robert Groden may be in possession of the original Nix film...

To believe the above means you believe both Marina and Lee lied about every aspect of this incident not only in their contemporaneous conversations and record-keeping, but also after the fact. Do you believe that?

What I'm driving at is that all this nonsense is built on a mountain of "if..." this and "well, maybe..." that. You see conspiracy in literally everything! Why is that? Why is it so hard to believe the wealth of evidence that Oswald did indeed shoot at General Walker?

So... you'd rather de Mohrenschildt to have waited a few days to politely speak to Oswald about the incident? What difference would that have made? Are you questioning the provenance of the inscription on the backyard photograph in question? No....

Semi-related: in this vintage episode of "Firing Line" with guest Mark Lane, he at one point says he's going to sue Liebeler for comments made about him and "Rush To Judgment" :

You guys can argue about what kind of jacket the bullet had until you are blue in the face. It does nothing to explain away or counter the wealth of evidence pointing to Oswald as having been involved in this assassination attempt.

Ludicrous, without so much as a hint of evidence to support it.

I truly hope you are joking with this statement. Otherwise, it would appear you believe people who support a woman's right to choose are purposefully being "divisive" for ... what reason, pray tell? Just to annoy those who believe it should be illegal?

Oh really? What exactly am I ignoring in this case? Steve is talking about a mistake (or lie?) in Marina's testimony - what's so revolutionary about that? And why are you incapable of even considering the possibility that Ruth's notation had to do with Marina's due date and not some sinister conspiracy?

Wait, Jeremy.. don't you realize that over here on ye olde Education Forum, there is no such thing as "a mundane explanation" ?

Do you really believe there are people who would vote for him simply because he says he "will open up the JFK records" ? Setting that aside for a moment, what qualifies him to be the President of the United States? And please don't say his lineage ...

And Oliver Stone is a Putin supporter. Does that make him untrustworthy to you as well?

Jim, it's not a contest, and I don't know why you insist that the two films have to be compared to one another. They should rise or fall on their own merits. It's all well and good to parse precisely when a JFK character is meant to be "speculating," but how does that work in the case of, say, the "Mr. X" / Prouty character? "His" pronouncements are conveyed in a way that is surely intended to be definitive, not speculative, and in reality the actual Prouty's claims on the subject are certainly up for dispute. Considering Mamet's movie was just announced and won't be released for some time, why not withhold judgement until you see the final product?

Did I ever say I was an authority on New Orleans? Did I even mention the subject in my posts? Rather, I said that there are inaccuracies and misrepresentations in both JFK and JFK Revisited, many of which have been discussed at length on this forum.

Unfortunately, they did! And unfortunately, it isn't!

You mean the same guy who used to dig through Bob Dylan's trash looking for proof of his loony theories?

https://deadline.com/2023/05/al-pacino-viggo-mortensen-john-travolta-shia-labeouf-courtney-love-david-mamets-jfk-assassination-cannes-1235366496/

This is the kind of post that passes for "research" on this forum. Pathetic.

Under what definition of journalism is Armstrong is "a very good writer" ? 900 pages with no editing? Boy, that'a a new one! I trust you will recognize there is a major difference between Oswald having been impersonated and him being a part of a decades-long secret government doppelganger scheme that also involved two distinct, human versions of his own mother. There is evidence for the former. The latter is laughable.

So the Dallas Police just made up fake identities for the three tramps 29 years after the assassination and conspired with their very real families to lie about what happened in Dealey Plaza, then allowed those families, and the tramps themselves, to give television interviews? Great conspiracy, Paul!

So, you're accepting the unsolicited opinion of one forensic artist over the actual documents and testimony refuting any ongoing mystery about the Three Tramps incident?

You have zero evidence that these photos aren’t of the men arrested in Dealey Plaza. Their family members, and some of the tramps themselves, confirmed that it was them.

What about the DPD arrest reports of the tramps is bogus? Please, educate us.