Jonathan Cohen

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

Harvey & Lee is one of the most absurd theories this side of "the Queen was a reptilian alien." Going down that rabbit hole is intellectual suicide. Don't do it. David says he "doesn't suffer fools." Oh, yes, he does, in spades.

Amen to this.

33 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

It's amazing to me that anyone can take even a casual look at stuff like this and not think something suspicious was going on.

I trust you recognize that there's a pretty big difference between "something suspicious" going on and believing in the absolutely ridiculous theory that there were each two different Lee and Marguerite Oswalds running amok all over the United States for more than a decade ...

26 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

All Harvey & Lee enthusiasts seem to care about is "SOMEBODY SAW TWO OSWALDS!!!" I would encourage them to step back and ask, when confronted with someone like Laura, "What the hell sense would this make, even in the context of our Harvey & Lee worldview?"

Don't hold your breath, Lance. Every attempt to elucidate this Harvey & Lee worldview is met with obfuscation, misdirection, claims of "It doesn't matter" and/or a bunch of the same unrelated listicles of alleged supporting evidence pasted over and over and over again. This is not how serious research is conducted.

2 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Yes definitely both are from the same original source. I don't  know if it was a drawing or just a poor image with too much contrast.

So in other words, Chris, based on your conclusions, all of these images are of the same person, ie., the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald? I certainly believe that to be the case, and I'm on record as believing the Harvey and Lee theory to be absolute nonsense, but just wanted to clarify your position.

3 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

Being elected does not equal being sworn in as President. That comes at noon on January 20th these days.

NOT in November.

I never said it equated to that, and neither did Lennon. This is a pointless squabble.

On 1/28/2023 at 9:36 AM, Gil Jesus said:

One has to ask the question how could John Lennon compare JFK to President Reagan when Lennon was murdered a month before Reagan was even inaugurated ?

I think articles like this are a bunch of BS. Entertaining but nothing more.

Your timeline is wrong - Reagan was elected two months before Lennon's murder. And Lennon would have been more than familiar with Reagan as a politician due to having lived in California for more than a year in the 1970s, around when Reagan was finishing his term as governor.

37 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

A powerful cover-up that continues today...

What on earth are you talking about? What "powerful cover-up" exists in the Lennon murder? Please don't tell me you are peddling your Bob Dylan mind control theories again?

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 

Orienting the photo this way appears to line up the damage precisely with the skull flap on the right side of the head as seen in the Zapruder film, as well as the area of missing bone seen in the x-rays. So what's the issue?

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Jeremy,

Mocking a forum member's work violates forum rules. Kindly remove those remarks from your post.

 

This is ridiculous. Since you keep changing the goal posts, how would you suggest one member critique the work of another when there are legitimate logical and methodological issues with said work?

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

So you simply dismiss the rest of the analysis... sloping shoulders, different size heads, aircraft mechanic doing air traffic controller work at a U-2 base and Jenner/Rankin needing to seriously change the information found out by ELY...

We don't exit in a vacuum... Evidence relates to each other like a spider's web..

And as usual your "evidence" adds up to a whole lot of nothing, much like the Harvey and Lee theory itself.

On 2/2/2023 at 5:31 PM, David Josephs said:

Seems I found it in a google search.. and it was probably from an auction site...

OK, so? How does this in any way indicate the photo in question is actually of Lee Oswald? It certainly does zero to advance the absolutely absurd theory that there were multiple Lees and multiple Marguerites.

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

You are aware that Oswald was set up to take the blame for Tippit and JFK...  or do you think this forum exists on Fantasy Island?

The notion that there were two Lee Oswalds (and two of his mother, for good measure) certainly exists on Fantasy Island! Do they have multiple Tattoos there as well, just to add the fun and excitement?

On 1/11/2023 at 10:32 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

I'd believe Nagell before three ex-KGB.

Virtually everything Nagell claimed regarding his involvement with domestic and foreign intelligence agencies, much less his alleged interactions with Oswald, is at best impossible to confirm and at worst provably false. Not one of the pieces of evidence for the above that he claimed for decades to possess has ever surfaced, because it never existed in the first place.

2 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

As it seems - for now - the only source for Nagell's "Oswald card" is the book.  And - next - according posts on this forum :  Russell says that he found the card in the files of Nagell's Washington DC attorney, Bernard Fensterwald Jr., whom Nagell retained in 1974. 

Jean Paul, you are correct (and thank you for your excellent research earlier in this thread diffusing needless conspiratorial speculation about specific dates on Oswald's paperwork). There is absolutely no chain of custody for the Nagell version of the Oswald ID card and no proof he possessed it anytime earlier than the mid 1970s, as this article very neatly details: https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/dick-russell-s-second-smoking-gun-on-the-richard-case-nagell-story

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

On our website, HarveyandLee.net, John Armstrong has noted the following peculiarities about this card, which includes information referring to Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald as well as to American-born LEE Oswald.

1. In Box 1 the original name given and entered was "HARVEY LEE OSWALD." The original name of HARVEY LEE OSWALD was erased and replaced with the name LEE HARVEY OSWALD.  Steve Thomas of this forum has an extensive list of many references to “Harvey Lee Oswald.”

2. Box 52 (a). In response to the question "Are your parents living?" HARVEY Oswald said no!

3. Box 52 (b). In response to the question "Are they divorced or separated?" HARVEY said no!

4. Box 53. The name of Robert E. Lee Oswald, DECEASED, was handwritten (not typed) as the father of Lee Harvey Oswald. When and by whom the name Robert E. Lee Oswald was handwritten on this document is unknown.

There are a couple of other oddities as well, which can be reviewed HERE.

Dr. James Norwood brought this recently discovered Application for Enlistment to our attention.

As with every single aspect of the absurd "Harvey and Lee" theory, there are perfectly reasonable alternative explanations for everything Jim wrote above that do not require the need for a long-term secret government doppelganger project.

4 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

I might remind you we just recently had a President suggesting to his CDC adviser we were going to work on injecting Lysol or bleach and somehow using an ultraviolet light (where would the wand go, I wonder?) to combat COVID. If you think a project using doubles is somehow impossible to consider in 1950 or whenever think again.

Bob, come on. Are you really comparing an idiotic, off-the-cuff comment by Trump to the complexities of a long-term secret government doppelganger project?

4 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

IThe idea the CIA or others would consider or implement such a plan is not only reasonable but likely was at least considered. It's not far out to sea.

Consider it? Sure. Implement it? I mean... maybe? The problem is that, as always, there are myriad perfectly reasonable alternative explanations that do not necessitate two different Lee Harvey Oswalds, beyond the other logical fallacies involving such a scheme (which have been debated here endlessly).

24 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

What a hoot!  I stay away from this forum for months, and then come back today to see Jonathan Cohen making up stuff about me again!

Cohen admitted in May of last year that "there is evidence Oswald was impersonated at various points in his life." 

But, of course, he wants to see nothing suspicious about that at all!  Don't even think about it, it happens to every Lone Nut, eh?

And for the umpteenth time, there is a huge difference between Oswald being impersonated and him being two different human beings entrenched in a decades-long, secret government doppelganger project. There is actual evidence for the former. The evidence for the latter is nothing more than oft-debunked, grossly misinterpreted documents/witness statements and laughable photo analysis.

39 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Your research supersedes Jim Garrison's statement Nagell is The most important witness?  Please provide us with details.

It sure does supersede it, considering Garrison made hundreds of wildly false and absurd statements along these lines. I commend the work of Dave Reitzes and Fred Litwin in taking apart the entire Nagell story. They have reached the same conclusions about it that I have.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/nagell1.htm

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/a-wrap-up-of-the-richard-case-nagell-story

58 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Nagell had an intense interest in the JFKA. We can assume he acquired books or went to a library to read about the JFKA.

There were copy machines, white-out and graphics shops, in 1963-1964. 

In addition, there is tension in this very thread about Nagell.

James D., don of the JFKA research community, has cited Nagell's claim that Nagell met LHO in Mexico.

You have provided extensive evidence that LHO's bus ride to MC is very dubious. You contend LHO was not in Mexico.

Can you rectify this conflict? 

Based on my research, the totality of the evidence shows that Nagell is not credible.

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Hey dude, it's not my theory. It is believed by several esteemed researchers including Peter Dale Scott. (What I call Fake Conspiracy is the same as what he calls Phase One.) I'm just trying to make it easier for other people to understand it.

Why don't you make yourself useful and do something for a change?

Just because Peter Dale Scott believes it doesn't mean it's correct, or even logical. You're apparently unwilling to discuss the flaws in the theory, much as you are with "Harvey and Lee" and other assassination-related speculation that necessitates most if not all of the evidence in the case having been falsified.

55 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Matt,

The reason the plotters would rather Oswald not  be there is that he would only get in the way. The plotters -- elements of the CIA -- were preparing evidence for a  Fake Conspiracy. The Fake Conspiracy consisted of Oswald planning the assassination with the Cubans and Russian.

According to the plan, immediately after the killing, the FBI would discover the Fake Conspiracy, but think it was real. That way Cuba and Russia would be implicated in the killing, and this would serve as a pretext for a Cuban invasion, or whatever the military could milk from it.

So, theoretically speaking, the CIA could have sent Oswald to Mexico City and told him to follow a script that, unbeknownst to him, was designed to make him a patsy. Or, they could just use some other CIA agent or agents to follow Oswald's script.

It's easier understanding this if you assume Oswald didn't go to Mexico City. Once you understand it, you can look at all the evidence and decide whether or not you think Oswald was there.

Maybe Oswald was in Mexico somewhere vacationing while others were busy setting him up in MC. That way he wouldn't need to be hid.

 

Another ludicrous post full of pretzel logic, which we can add to the preposterously complicated and unnecessary Oswald doppelganger project of which Sandy is a champion. Do you expect us to believe that the FBI would not actually investigate "the fake conspiracy" you outline above and instead just accept it hook, line, and sinker? Do you expect us to believe the CIA would take that risk in a conspiracy this wide-ranging? Furthermore, what kind of theory begins with such a consequential assumption (Oswald didn't go to Mexico City) rather than looking at all the evidence FIRST?

3 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I can’t speak for Greg, but he did address this issue. Basically, you are assuming that the original plan was to frame Oswald as a lone nut. If the plan was to create the appearance of a Communist conspiracy by connecting the rifle to Oswald who could subsequently be linked to the Cubans and/or Russians it wouldn’t really matter where Oswald was standing at the time of the shooting. 

Tom, if this was indeed the plan, why did it collapse so quickly and instead become “Oswald did it by himself” ?

39 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Why is it whenever the "contrary for contrary sake" crowd attacks something they automatically give ownership of general theories and ideas to a single person?

Maybe when you’re done calling people names you could actually address the fact that the Nagell document in question is worthless as evidence for deception/government chicanery involving Oswald in Mexico City?

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The theory has never been torn to shreds on this forum, at least not since I've been  a member (~2016). In fact, Jim Hargrove has handily beaten every person I've seen him debate regarding the two boys.

I strongly disagree. In fact, Jim Hargrove ran away and never came back after his most recent beating. Numerous member polls on this forum have also shown that the vast majority of serious assassination researchers dismiss "Harvey and Lee" as pure idiocy.

4 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

What was the US Government's game in using the pictures of two different individuals and claiming they were both Lee Harvey Oswald ? These two are obviously NOT the same person.

For crying out loud - this preposterous theory again, which has been thoroughly torn to shreds not only on this forum but also Greg Parker's forum and Tracy Parnell's web site?