Jonathan Cohen

I never asked to be one, or for your opinion on me, but I’m glad you’re not one either.

You rest your case because nobody believes such a ridiculous theory?

I don't consider it far-fetched as a broader concept. It has certainly happened before. However, it is HUGELY far-fetched as it applies to this case, and the evidence for it does not stand up to actual scrutiny. The film and photo record in Dealey Plaza is a self-authenticating whole.

You're wrong. People don't reject JFK conspiracy theories because they're inherently far-fetched. They reject them because the evidence in support of them either doesn't stand up to actual scrutiny or can be countered by any number of perfectly logical alternative explanations. There's nothing "far-fetched" about the broader concept of photo alteration. What's far-fetched is people refusing to consider other solutions while also hand-waving away the major technical and logistical hurdles any conspirators would have had to clear. You have a very different definition of "evidence" than many people who have been studying this case for generations, which is borne out by the fact that the research community almost unanimously rejects the idiotic "Harvey and Lee" theory.

So the answer is, yes, this process is a closed loop for anyone who isn't "invited" to become "admin staff" and that forum membership at large has no say whatsoever in who said admin staff is or how they are chosen.

And my question is, who chooses the admin staff, and how? Does the wider forum membership have any say in this process?

So what you're actually saying is, you, Sandy Larsen, can predict unpredictability?

Are you saying you have reason to question my motives for filing reports about objectionable posts? Would you care to elaborate? So at this time, the forum membership at large had/has no formal say in who is chosen as a moderator?

Trying to apply probabilistic odds to this case is both futile and foolhardy. Coincidences happen. Unlikely things happen. In fact, they happen all the time as part of major historical events. Why is that so impossible to accept?

Does this forum currently have an active moderator other than Sandy Larsen? What is the ongoing role of Mark Knight and Kathy Beckett in forum moderation? I, and others here, would like to know the actual process by which warnings and posting suspensions are given. Do the moderators vote? Can one overrule the other?

For the love of god, can someone please stop this guy from posting pages and pages of the same stuff over and over again?

Do you honestly expect anyone here to be able to read, much less understand, your posts filled with different-sized and colored fonts and bold type for no apparent reason? Why you can't provide links rather than copying and pasting the same enormous blocks of text over and over again? You are giving people a headache.

Larry - I urge you to be as contrarian and curmudgeonly as you like! Your critical eye is sorely needed here to help weed out the total nonsense peddled by far too many.

Thanks David. Much appreciated. One more follow-up: in your view, how does this jive both timing- and logistics-wise with Oswald's visit to Mexico City?

David, for those of us who were unable to see your presentation, would you be willing to summarize who you think these men were?

Oh no! You've discovered my playbook! My days as a paid disinformation specialist sent specifically to bother you will be numbered!

Doesn’t look like it has helped much!

Your poor spelling notwithstanding, I’m not going anywhere, pal. I look forward to commenting on all of your posts and calling out your absurd claims.

No, just someone who has researched this case for more than 30 years, collaborated with some of the top thinkers in the field and spoken as an invited guest at numerous JFK conferences. There's not a shred of disinformation in my posts. Did I hurt your feelings by questioning your theories on film and photo alteration?

Hardly. I'm offering suggestions to at least make your posts more readable, but there's not much to say in terms of you repeating the same film and photo alteration nonsense over and over.

You do realize people here can read, right? So why do you keep repeatedly posting the full text of articles in forum threads? And why are all of your posts in bold?

As always, thanks for the laugh, Jeremy. I met Jack in person on a couple of occasions, and he was a lovely guy. Unfortunately, his loony ravings are still taken seriously by people in 2024.

A laughable post in multiple ways, not least of which is the absurd attempt to paint Pat as the only researcher who rejects the massive and completely unproven photo fakery you allege. Of all the forum members who should be denounced, you are far and away at the top of the list.

Absolute, complete nonsense, but not surprising coming from someone who relies on Harrison Livingstone for primary source material ...

Uhh, no.. Jack has been dead since 2012. The link you provided is to Bill Kelly's blog.