Jonathan Cohen

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?

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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? 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).

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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?

"Virtually everybody" ? You're joking, right? I can think of dozens of highly experienced researchers, many of whom frequent this forum, who profoundly disagree with your ceaseless insistence that all the evidence is fake, particularly as it pertains to Oswald's visit to Mexico City.

A researcher who believes the figure known as "Prayer Man" is TSBD employee Sarah Stanton.

How is this relevant to discussion of the Kennedy assassination? Do you believe Communism is evil?

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/spanish-lawmakers-approve-transgender-rights-bill-2022-12-22/ I'd love to see Gil Jesus explain to these happy people why they're wrong and his version of "God" is correct about their gender.

Thank you, Pat, for once again adding the proper nuance to this particular issue .. something that many regular posters here refuse to do.

This coming from someone who announced to the world earlier this year, right here on this forum, that "only God" can decide the sex of a child and that "he never makes mistakes" -- an "extreme" view if ever I've seen one, and one that imposes your personal religious beliefs on the lives of other people. Your massive hypocrisy should be apparent to any regular reader here.

You're actually asking me to "explain why" Gil's comment "might be offensive," as if you yourself can't imagine why someone might think that?