Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jonathan Cohen

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,064

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Jonathan Cohen

    Moderators

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

    This is from a guy who believes that all the witnesses (most of them) were wrong about the location of the gaping head wound. According to him, that they all got it wrong is a "perfectly logical alternative explanation." The reason he says that, of course, is because he considers alteration of photographic evidence to be far-fetched.

    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.

    Moderators

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

    I prefer to go by the evidence rather than by what people might consider to be far fetched. LNers don't believe in a conspiracy and a coverup because -- to them -- they are far fetched concepts. Pat Speer doesn't believe there was a gaping wound  on the back of Kennedy's head, and goes so far as to believe in mass hallucination among witnesses, because -- to him -- photographic alteration is a far fetched concept.

    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.

    49 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

    Forum members have made fun of me because I believe that LHO was groomed to be a Russian-speaking spy beginning at age 13. That may sound far fetched to some, but the evidence for it is extensive.

    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.

    Moderators

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

    Current members of the admin staff invite another forum member, as necessary, to become a junior member. For example, Ron Bulman replaced Kathy Beckett when she resigned.

    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.

    Moderators

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

    All three of us in the admin staff are moderators.

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

    WHY PAT SPEER OWES THE FAMILY OF DR. ROBERT McCLELLAND AN APOLOGY

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

    They happen PRECISELY as often as the laws of statistic say they will.

    Can a one-in-a-million event happen today. Sure! But it's highly unlikely to.

    Put your money where your mouth is. I'll bet my house against your $100 that a one-in-a-million event will not happen today. Just name the event and you've got my handshake. (I'll donate the $100 to the forum.)

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

    Moderators

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

    Reason to wonder about motives?

    Are you saying you have reason to question my motives for filing reports about objectionable posts? Would you care to elaborate?

    2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

    Mark Knight, Ron Bulman, and myself are currently the active members of the admin staff. I am currently more active than Mark at moderating, and Ron is in training.

    So at this time, the forum membership at large had/has no formal say in who is chosen as a moderator?

    Moderators

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    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?

    CIA presence on 11/22/63

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

    I think the thing is that my views have evolved to be somewhat contrarian in respect to much of the dialog here and I don't want  become more of a curmudgeon than I already am.

    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.

    CARL TRETTIN

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    1 hour ago, David Boylan said:

    Jonathan,

    The short story is that it was Oswald, Carlos Hernandez and Victor "Papucho" Espinosa Hernandez. I had 47 slides attempting to put this together. 🙂

    Victor was "Leopoldo." Carlos the "other" guy. Sylvia never knew his name but thought it could be Angel or Angelo, but she admitted she might have got that wrong. The key to me was tying all the New Orleans Cubans to Sylvia and Carlos and Victor.

     

     

    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?

    CARL TRETTIN

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, David Boylan said:

    I also presented on who I believe were Odio's visitors.

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

    Doug Horne Responds to Gary Aguilar's Recent Review of "What the Doctors saw"

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Jonathan Cohen

    9 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

    Are you an online JFK disinformation xxxxx, or what?

    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?

    Jack White & the "death squads"

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

    I suspect that "Bill Kelly" is in fact a CIA-generated impostor and Jack White's doppelgänger. Has anyone checked to see whether "Bill Kelly" was given a top-secret mastoidectomy operation at the age of six at a hospital that hadn't been built yet? Or that the unrelated mothers of "Bill" and "Jack" looked identical apart from their eyebrows?

    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.

    WHY PAT SPEER OWES THE FAMILY OF DR. ROBERT McCLELLAND AN APOLOGY

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

    The only reason we are having this debate is because a single prominent forum member -- Pat Speer -- has an irrational, preconceived, notion that photographic evidence could not have been altered as part of the coverup.

    Pat should be denounced for his ongoing massive use of cherry picking and misrepresentation in arguing his easily-demonstrable, wrong conclusion regarding the blowout wound. Not only because what he's doing is wrong, but because it confuses newbies. And newbies are the future of our cause.

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...