Jonathan Cohen

27 minutes ago, Kathy Beckett said:

Where did you get 8 feet west of the corner of the fence?  James files?

I do know that Mack was in DP during an acoustic recreation, and he stated you couldn't tell where the shots were coming from because the sound was bouncing all over.

Out of curiosity, why isn't Gordon Arnold visible in any films or photos of the assassination sequence? 

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Oh come on. Even the WC realized that Marina’s testimony was full of contradictions and that she wasn’t a credible witness.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=233350#relPageId=26

I never said her testimony didn't have contradictions, but this can hardly be used to completely invalidate her claims that she took the photos. If she didn't, then who did? And if she didn't, then can you offer an explanation for the copy of the photo signed by Oswald and given to George DeMohrenschildt in April 1963?

50 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

I don't remember everything Jack White said about his photo analysis. It seemed like there were enough posts to fill a book. While some of his ideas may have been shown to be wrong, I doubt he was "thoroughly debunked". 

Oh, he most surely was.. including many times right here on this forum, via Josiah Thompson's work quashing White's "Moorman in the street" nonsense, and on non-JFK sites such as Bad Astronomy, which destroyed White's "the moon landing was faked" claims.

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Somewhere up above, Jack White is flapping his wings.

While down here the real world, Jack White's absurd photo "analysis" has, thankfully, been thoroughly debunked, but I wonder if the conspirators who operate the evil, modern-day Dealey Plaza surveillance system are wondering why Jack and John Costella never visit the area with their surveying equipment anymore?

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Marina's word versus Lee's. Lee is infinitely more credible than Marina!  IMO

Oh sure.... the camera she didn't even know where the viewfinder was.

Another Marina lie. (Can't blame her though, given what she was put through.)

What.... you mean that faked autograph? LOL

Right. So, as usual, all the evidence is fake and every witness is a l**r, huh ? Seems like your answer for everything.

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald is one of the more credible sources of information regarding himself. Possibly the most credible.

OK, so that must mean you believe the photos are genuine, considering Oswald autographed a print of one of them for George DeMohrenschildt. That must also mean you believe he attempted to assassinate General Walker, since he told Marina that he'd done so. I'm sure you're aware that Marina has insisted from day one that she took the backyard photos herself.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

As I recall, this was long-ago exposed as Soviet disinformation. They forged the letter to try to implicate H.L. Hunt, not realizing the CT's to whom they leaked it would seize upon it being Howard Hunt. 

Pat, Jerry Kroth has an interesting video on this subject, although I'm not sure I agree with his overall conclusion that the letter is genuine based on its repetition of a particular Oswald misspelling. According to his research, the Mitrohkin angle is bunk, and not supported by the trove of Mitrohkin documents housed overseas.

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Three handwriting experts consulted by the Dallas Morning News concluded that Oswald wrote the Hunt letter. If Oswald didn't write it, it was a very good forgery.

Federal investigators didn't want to admit that Oswald wrote the letter because it raises several troubling questions, nor did they want to explore who may have forged the letter if it was in fact a forgery, since such a highly skilled forgery would suggest the involvement of intelligence personnel.

Two major problems, depending on who you think the "Mr. Hunt" was. If It was E. Howard Hunt, why would Oswald have been writing to him using his real name, when Hunt frequently used aliases during intelligence operations? If it was a member of the Hunt oil family, why on earth would they get involved in the assassination and then pay for a full-page ad in the local newspaper advertising just how much they hated and despised President Kennedy? E. Howard Hunt himself believed the document was a forgery made by the Russians to implicate him in the assassination plot.

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

At the risk of invoking Marguerite among a readership that will likely jump down the throat of anyone who chooses to venture here, Lee's mother knew her son better than certainly Marina let alone Ruth, and also recognized that Ruth was not a "friend" to be trusted. I believe numerous records reflect that Ruth was never in their company as a friend again?

Leslie, this is simply wrong. For one thing, Oswald went out of his way to cut ties with Marguerite when he returned to Texas after Russia, so you cannot reasonably say she “knew” him well during this period of time. Marguerite’s opinion of the Paines is similarly uninformed and largely based on her own profound jealously and sense of entitlement - she was incensed that Lee and Marina would rather rely on the Paines than her. Lastly, the notion that the Paines were somehow obligated to maintain a relationship with Marguerite after the assassination is foolish, especially in light of the fact that they were blanketed by Secret Service and other federal and local agents.

45 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Saying something is ridiculous is not a logical rebuttal. Neither is an ad hominem attack.

Thanks for the validation.

Back to "ignore" for you, laddie.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Ruth Paine certainly didn't apply the presumption of innocence principle to Oswald when he was dead. Her badmouthing of him then was despicable and it destroys her self-presentation as a kind and virtuous person.

To do that to a murdered man was inexcusable. What made it even worse is that it effectively condoned the actions of the Dallas police in their facilitating Oswald's murder.

In view of Ruth Paine's behaviour in these respects alone, she cannot be considered innocent.

This is one of the most ridiculous “takes” I’ve heard in a long time, but it’s not surprising considering the source.

24 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Ruth Paine was fine human being, especially after Oswald was arrested. She really helped him out didn't she ?

Yes, she absolutely did help him and his family. In fact, she went above and beyond, considering the circumstances. No amount of your evidence-free conspiracy theories will change that.

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

One can be "used" without realizing it, Jonathan, as I'm guessing you're aware. 

Of course. But, again, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Paines were being "used without realizing it."

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Are you at all curious about the prior friendship the Paines shared with the Ubiquitous Bard who frequented the same barbershop as Oswald? 

Nope! I'm sure you could draw plenty of tangential connections like this but they require actual evidence to mean anything on a larger scale.

50 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Those in DPD responsible for the Paine garage must have recognized the friendly relationship between FBI SA Bard Odum — first name basis including Bard's nickname — and figured if he was okay with Ruth and Michael, there was no reason to grill them? 

They were grilled plenty .. and in nearly 60 years, there has never been any concrete evidence pointing toward them being involved in a conspiracy, despite what most people on this forum apparently believe.

27 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Jonathan,

      Mark Lane noted at the coroner's inquest that the audio tape indicated that an intruder had entered the house (triggering a security alarm) shortly before De Mohrenschildt was murdered.

      See Hit List. Sky Horse. (2013) Richard Belzer & David Wayne.  pp. 236-37.

I'm not so sure about that, and would definitely like a better source than a book by Richard Belzer ...

Just now, Pat Speer said:

It might not be relevant, but context is everything. By 1963, the American public, of all stripes, had been inundated with stories and movies depicting good Quakers who would not harm a fly. It makes sense to me that whatever normal instincts the DPD had about the Paines--that they shouldn't be trusted--were put into the deep freeze once they realized they were Quakers. I mean, these were freakin' Quakers, for crying out loud. 

I had a similar response in my personal life. When my dad died in a different state, I had to go up and sort through his stuff, etc. At the time he was working as a property manager for a religious couple--I think Mennonites. In any event, they had his keys and could have stolen all sorts of stuff--cash, jewelry, electronics, etc. But they were super nice. And religious. So it never crossed my mind. 

 

Pat, I agree.. which is all the more reason to brush aside conspiratorial overtones involving the DPD search of the Paine household.

10 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

He may have been suicided.  

There is no evidence that he didn’t kill himself. The entire incident is captured on an audio recording.

8 minutes ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

Considering how the authorities treated a far less intimate acquaintance of LHO’s - Buell Frazier - grilling him for hours - also shows how strange this is.

There’s really nothing strange about any of this, despite the attempts by people here to lump the Paines in with a conspiracy.

24 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

The ambush was just one of several attempts on DeGaulle's life in the 60s. After an earlier one, JFK sent what was an apology to the French Ambassador saying he couldn't control elements of his own government--the CIA (see Devil's Chessboard).  Kennedy thought the CIA had been involved.  The CIA admitted that Souetre contacted them in '63 to try to get their help with OAS's vendetta against DeGaulle.  They said they rejected him.  Another limited hangout, or simply a lie?  After JFK was murdered, DeGaulle was reported to have said he thought the same people who had been after him got Kennedy.

This just the bare bones.  Beginning to see a connection?

Roger, I've always been aware of the connection. My point is that Gil's post makes no such connection - instead, it's a thin attempt to (apparently?) spank the Warren Commission for concluding that a lone gunman assassinated President Kennedy in the face of DeGaulle having emerged unscathed from an attack in which 100-plus shots were fired. There's no connection between the actual assassination scenarios beyond that both of them were attempts on the life of a state leader.

2 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

I've thought about it, and I don't think I am going to be asking anyone's permission to see if my post is "appropriate" before I say anything in this, or any other forum.

Steve Thomas

Steve, I never said anything about forum members "asking anyone's permission" to post here. People can of course post whatever they want, but they need to then be prepared to discuss the relevancy of said post to JFK assassination-related content. In this case, I don't see the connection at all.

9 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

OMG, are they crying again about my posts ?

Ex-military officers fired 147 shots at deGaulle with automatic weapons and not one shot hit any of the occupants of the car.

In comparison, the Warren Commission concluded that a single shooter killed President Kennedy with only three shots from a bolt-action rifle.

If they can't see how this shows how ridiculous the Warren Commission's findings are, I don't know what to say.

It's relevant.

What on earth are you talking about? What does the number of shots fired at deGaulle have to do with the number of shots fired at President Kennedy? They are two completely different events taking place under completely different circumstances. What is your actual point? I can't detect one.

This has nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination - it's a scene from a movie. Please move this discussion to another forum.

4 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I peeked into the sample of the book Amazon provides. Larry Rivera conferred in the book that he had proven Lee Oswald was in Altgens6 picture, and that Buell Wesley Frazier was removed from Altgens6. I am afraid that individual biases and errors have been left unchallenged in this book. I did message to Mr. Rivera a while ago to also look at my analysis of Altgens6 picture, however, there was no response. 

Oh brother - “removed” from Altgens 6? It’s depressing that people are still pushing ridiculous alteration theories involving this image …

7 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Gordon Arnold was over near where Zapruder was.

Did the LEO/actor confiscate his film before or after the assassination?

I honestly can't remember.

Beverly Oliver had her movie camera taken away also.

There is no proof whatsoever that Gordon Arnold was in Dealey Plaza, other than his own claims. Likewise, Beverly Oliver is a super nice person, but she is absolutely not the Babushka Lady.

7 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

getting tough supporting the 1964 WCR is it? LMAO!

Thank you for confirming that indeed you do not have anything of substance to add to the discussion other than jive-talking gobbledygook.