Jonathan Cohen

Why after eight years are you reviving a random thread to call out another member for your own purely self aggrandizing reasons? Why do you keep bragging about your "proofs" all over this forum, when in fact they are absolutely not "proofs" in any way, shape or form?

Anything Tosh Plumlee has said about his activities in and around 11/22/1963 needs to be taken with a gigantic grain of salt...

And once again I ask, how could "they" possibly be sure that further film and photo evidence wouldn't emerge in the days following the assassination, which would naturally invalidate and expose the entire alteration of the Zapruder film in the first place?

What "people in higher positions" did he know?

Why? A person who admired President Kennedy still assassinated him in broad daylight in 1963.

What absolute, utter nonsense (IN MY OPINION). The only person who will make sure Donald doesn't get a second term is Donald himself when he loses the election in a few months.

That's not "proof," in any way, shape or form.

But David, can we really "skip over" the Plumlee bits when he's one of the main advocates for a south knoll shooter in the first place?

Sooooo.. local law enforcement and the Secret Service conspired to allow this person to shoot at Trump?

Who cares what you believe? You're just making stuff up. This is one time I wholeheartedly agree with Cliff !!

This is absolute and utter nonsense, in my opinion, and it has been previously shown to you as such. You cannot prove a film has been altered with "statistics."

Did you read Witt's testimony before the HSCA, in which he describes the "dark complected man" in a way that makes it clear it could not have been Santiago?

It did nothing of the kind. The Umbrella Man is Louis Steven Witt and always has been.

So doesn't that mean they would have needed to alter EVERY film and photo showing the head shot, to make sure there wasn't a mountain of clearly contradictory evidence suddenly showing up months, weeks or years after the assassination?

And clearly in your version, the plotters had not a care in the world ahead of time that they'd have to selectively alter film and photo evidence of the crime without ever knowing if said alterations would contradict other evidence not available to them within hours of the assassination?

Are you actually trying to claim that simply because Humes may have said such a thing in the heat of the most important professional moment of his life that it AUTOMATICALLY means there actually was surgery to the head? Because that is also absurd. YOUR untrained interpretation of what an autopsy photo shows is not evidence, at all.

It was "reported" by agents who had no direct evidence for it other than their own personal impressions of the state of the body, and even if such a statement was uttered out loud by Dr. Humes during the autopsy, as Sibert later claimed, it's because there was genuine confusion on the part of the doctors as to what wounds were caused by what bullets (which is, of course, completely normal and does not require any kind of conspiratorial explanation). There is absolutely ZERO medical evidence to support the notion that any illicit surgery took place before the autopsy. Then you are seeing it to the exclusion of every other medically trained, professional witness who actually was in the room during the autopsy.

Claude, I'm curious why someone wouldn't mull all of the above and conclude instead that Oswald alone assassinated President Kennedy?

Absolute and utter nonsense. It is in no way whatsoever "a fact" that anything of the sort happened, at all.

"Another person MAY HAVE been present" qualifies as corroboration to you? It sure doesn't for me, and I suspect most everybody else here.

W: "Defamatory" ? Uhhhh, really? I didn't start the thread, but Bill seems merely to be pointing out what in his opinion is a flaw in McBride's logic. All I did was post a clip of Callaway testifying as a means to provide a rejoinder to McBride's odd description of Callaway as "kind of out of control."

Agreed. This is the kind of thing that should be more clearly announced to forum members, but I'm pleased to see Dr. Niederhut assume moderator responsibilities in light of the nonsense that has gone on here of late.

Gerry, are you implying Oswald was not a genuine defector?

Great point, Bill. For further reference, here's Callaway testifying during the Oswald mock trial in the '80s.

Boy, these conspirators sure were smart and careful to be personally present in Dallas during the hit for all to see, and to be captured in numerous films and photos of the crime, aren't they?