Jonathan Cohen

41 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

I was particularly struck by Horne's citing of that fabulous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn that explains the difficulty of overthrowing an entrenched paradigm, or set of ideas.

And I’m particularly struck by how Horne’s “paradigm” crumbles when one dismisses his preposterous allegations of human body alteration and fakery of the complete photo and film record of the assassination. 

10 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Doug’s ‘evidence’ is first hand. 

No, he can only report what Hunt told him. If he has actual evidence to support Hunt’s claims, I’ve yet to see it. Has anybody else ?

16 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

I knew Howard Hunt and Dorothy Hunt and St. John Hunt. I also knew Gordon Liddy and John Dean and Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and Bernard Barker and the other four arrested burglars and the three prosecutors and Judge Sirica and Robert Mullen and Bob Bennett other Watergate figures. I testified under oath at the first Watergate trial.

Howard Hunt testified under oath before the Senate Watergate Committee. 

The member who is protesting here about the existence of this topic is a chronic disrupter. We have had these types of persons here in the Forum before. He should be ignored as he brings nothing to the debate.

I bring nothing to the debate? Where is your evidence to support ANYTHING Howard Hunt may have said about aliens and the Kennedy assassination? 

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Remember, I'm the one who got the moderators to enforce forum rules against some of your shaming tactics.

Why on earth do you keep mentioning things like this? Do you think anybody cares?

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

To have any impact whatsoever, the critic must show a serious problem with the theory.

People have been doing this as it pertains to your "theories," right here at this very forum, for years and years.

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Are you quite certain that E. Howard Hunt was just making this "Alien Presence" stuff up?

Granted, he was known for writing fiction-- Bimini Run, etc.-- but what basis do you have for your apparent certainty here?

The fact that Hunt was a known prevaricator who was incensed the CIA left him hanging out to dry during Watergate, the fact that, as you mention, he was well-versed in crafting fiction, and the fact that there's literally not a shred of evidence to support what he may have said about aliens?

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

It has become too old and convenient to demand peer-review when that's exactly what we do here with people far more knowledgeable about the event than most anyone anywhere else. 

Yet when ACTUAL experts such as Zavada deliver slam-dunk proof that the film has not been altered to the absurd degree claimed by people here, you refuse to accept his conclusions.

15 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

The putative link to the JFKA is that E. Howard Hunt hinted to his attorney, Douglas Caddy, that JFK's assassination had something to do with intel about the "alien presence."

Right. The fact that people take this seriously is IN MY OPINION a major detriment to actual study of the assassination.

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

So the idea that Johnson and McCone had a keen interest in finding out what the Z film showed is just my personal opinion that falls apart in the absence of actual evidence of it (whatever form you imagine that "evidence" would take).  Why don't you explain why they didn't care what it showed?  Or why briefing boards were made for them to show what the film captured.

No, the idea that they may have had a "keen interest" in no way means the Zapruder film was altered.

1 minute ago, Roger Odisio said:

According to you a point is not legit to consider unless it can be documented.  Which of course is particular nonsense, and damaging to research, when the topic is the CIA--what it did or didn't do. 

Nobody ever said the point couldn't be "considered." But that consideration falls apart in the absence of any ACTUAL evidence. Not speculation, not "maybe this happened" and not your personal belief that it "was crucial that Johnson and McCone find out if the Z film, now known to the world, contradicted their story, and if so, to what extent." That's not EVIDENCE.

33 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

A top secret clearance was needed by anyone visiting HW. 

As Tom has pointed out...

Translation: The only ‘evidence’ the film was sent to Hawkeye Works is 34 year-old hearsay reported by a single witness with admitted memory problems. 

There is no corroboration, no actual evidence, and no reason to believe that any copy of the Z-film was ever in Rochester at any time other than McMahon’s reported hearsay from alleged SS agent “Bill Smith”. 

12 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I've not read this thread completely, I rarely do Bill's comments.  I skimmed through parts of it.  I still can't help but wonder if "Oak Cliff Time Trials" shouldn't start with: How quickly could Oswald Walk fast/run from his rooming house to where Tippit was killed, then from there to the Texas Theater.  Then consider when he arrived at the boarding house, how long he stayed, and, when he arrives at the Texas Theater and how long afterwards until his arrest.  Altogether, impossible?

Is there any particular reason you feel the need to demean Bill Brown by proclaiming that you "rarely" read his comments?

And if you'd actually read the thread, you'd see that your rhetorical questions are all addressed, including how long Oswald stayed at his rooming house and where he went from there.

2 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Homer McMahon said he was told by Bill Smith that a patriotic citizen in Dallas had donated the camera-original film to the Secret Service out of a sense of duty

Is it not correct that "Bill Smith" has never been identified, and that there's actually no evidence he existed other than these specific accounts?

47 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

a meeting with Veciana in September

Steve, please don't tell me you actually believe this happened?

35 minutes ago, Chris Scally said:

I have followed the recent discussions here about what supposedly happened to the camera-original Zapruder film and the three first-days copies, and have been astonished at the amount of unfounded speculation which has been presented as fact by people who seem to have done no actual research of their own.

Chris - thank you again for your incredibly valuable research and contributions to the forum over the years.

Why is this thread still featured in this section of the forum? It no longer has anything to do whatsoever with the Kennedy assassination (if it ever did). Can it be moved?

7 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

He doesn't have to.

Muchmore told you herself:

This is absolute nonsense. Soooo.... what film did Muchmore personally sell to United Press International on November 25, 1963?

28 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Heck, most pictures and cameras confiscated were never even returned to their owners!

What specific "pictures and cameras" are you referring to, besides the alleged Babushka Lady film?

30 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Life first published 31 black and white stills from the film on Nov. 29, one week after the murder, not that Monday. 

The issue was DATED Nov. 29. Surely it was physically available before that date, which means Jeremy's timeline is totally valid.

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Which is why I thinks members shouldn't be allowed to post demonstrable falsehoods.

Clearly, your definition of "demonstrable falsehoods" is not shared by the majority of members here - hence your removal as a moderator.

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

I know that it's part of YOUR JOB, all the way from Denmark, to support the AMERICAN government's investigation into the assassination of an AMERICAN president. Why is that ? Why does an Danish citizen so passionately support the American government ? Why is it that your name appears at the bottom of page 1 of this forum on some days, 12 hours a day ?

What is your interest in all of this ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

What a disgraceful, xenophobic post, but not at all surprising, considering Gil Jesus' history of repulsive comments along these lines.

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Your question indicated you're inability, or unwillingness, to consider Oswald as anything other than  "a commie." Jim Garrison recognized otherwise, and it's tragic that the legend remains locked in popular lore. Either he was a communist, or he loved and tried to save JFK as per Judyth Baker.  Both claims served to derail the leads uncovered by Oglesby, Brussell, Marrs.... and Garrison. Why didn't acolytes of Garrison’s case against Shaw step up and follow through? All the markers were in plain sight. Was it because they were busy chasing Cubans or a thermos of cancer cells?

Truly, what are you talking about? Now I have to consider Lee Oswald as "something" before I can understand your reference to Marguerite Oswald's "Nazi" spokesperson? Why can't you just state simply and clearly what any of that has to do with anything?

54 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

And this is another attempt at deflection from the facts, facts that seem to make you and a number of "seasoned researchers" extremely nervous for some reason. 

Hardly! The only person deflecting is you, when I pressed you to explain what larger connection you are attempting to draw between the "Nazi" spokesperson (your words) and Marguerite Oswald.

16 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

let me simplify: Rudel =Thompson = Marguerite Oswald

A source on Thompson indicates Thompson had known Marguerite in York. Thompson was a mentor to young Nazi sympathizers including Dan Burros. Burros' contact info in LHO address book. Burros was involved with producing pamphlets in support of the OAS being shipped to SS Otto Remer based in Oran.

Riiiiight. So is this is just another variation of your "Spaceballs" dialog-esque "I am your father's, brother's, nephew's, cousin's former roommate" - ie., a bunch of random and unrelated occurrences that you deem evidence of some massive conspiracy.

29 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Did I say that?

Then why bring it up in the first place? What relevance does it have in any form?

17 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

... as is your insinuation Hank Albarelli would be duped, or more egregious an accusation, he was a fraud.  I'm not appealing to authority, I'm suggesting you think it through.

Dozens and dozens of top researchers in this case think the datebook is a fraud, and will continue to do so until they can independently investigate it and attempt to determine its authenticity.