Jonathan Cohen
-
Posts
1,202 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Jonathan Cohen
-
-
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:
What we're discussing here is highly speculative.
Saying that the plotters had a hand in choosing the TSBD job for Oswald is not. It's hardly even controversial. Anybody who thinks the plotters chose the assassination site also have to believe that the plotters got Oswald to work there.
Sandy Larsen loves to deal simultaneously in "highly speculative" nonsense about Ruth Paine's "assignments" from her CIA handlers and bald assertions about what people on this forum "have to believe." This is not how real researchers operate.
-
3 hours ago, John Cotter said:
There you go again, pestering someone about evidence. Sandy has submitted cogent arguments about the topic in question based on established evidence.
Please show me where Sandy has made a cogent argument based on ACTUAL evidence, not a listicle of weak CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence subject to his own interpretation, that Linnie Mae Randle and Ruth Paine lied about manipulating Oswald into the TSBD or that "CIA plotters" had influence over the motorcade route. Now Sandy appears to be claiming, again without any evidence whatsoever, that there was "CIA impostor" helping set Oswald up in the days prior to the assassination.
3 hours ago, John Cotter said:What is your position on the JFKA? Are you a lone nut theorist?
No. But I will always call out shoddy research and wild speculation from conspiracy theorists, a la the absurd "Harvey and Lee" theory and claims of massive alteration of the film and photo record, especially when perfectly reasonable alternative explanations are available.
-
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
The only suppositions I made are that the plotters would not have allowed the assassination site to be chosen randomly, and they would have planned the assassination and getaway.
You also made suppositions. Those being that Linnie Mae Randall told the truth and that CIA plotters had no influence over the motorcade route.
Only problem: your suppositions are not supported by any EVIDENCE. You have zero evidence that Linnie Mae Randle was lying, and you have zero evidence that "CIA plotters" had "influence over the motorcade route."
-
32 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:
I noticed that Matt didn’t respond to my request for clarification. He is one of many rude posters that have joined in here. What motivates them? Does anyone else wonder? Is it just a reflection of the breakdown of civil discourse in the US?
Paul, I presume you're referring to me as one of the rude posters? My motivation is that many people on this forum make bold assertions that are not based on actual evidence but rather a seemingly endless supply of what-ifs, maybes and grasping at staws. They appear to blindly believe in preposterous conspiracy theories that have perfectly reasonable, alternative explanations. It makes the research community look foolish.
-
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Actually, I believe that Oswald was knowingly being controlled by the CIA. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence showing this and most scholarly researchers believe it to be the case.
Once again, this is 4000% false. List just ONE piece of actual evidence that Oswald KNEW he was being controlled by the CIA in the weeks to the assassination -- not your theories and speculations. Real evidence.
-
6 minutes ago, John Cotter said:
Your initial request was, "Please detail any evidence whatsoever ..."
You've now moved the goalposts to "hard evidence".
Thanks for illustrating my point.
And thank you for illustrating MY point that you and Sandy have nothing but speculation and bald assertions to support the notion that Oswald was being "controlled" by the CIA without his knowledge.
-
17 minutes ago, John Cotter said:
Not engaging with the evidence already presented and instead looking for more evidence is a form of disruption known as sealioning.
More generally, people not engaging with the “critical path” of an argument are wasting everyone’s time. I’m stepping back for now.
There has been no hard evidence presented here that Oswald was being "controlled" by the CIA -- just Sandy Larsen's speculation and assertions.
-
1 hour ago, John Cotter said:
The discussion has progressed beyond that stage, as you would see from Matt's penultimate post. Please don't be disruptive.
I’m hardly being disruptive by asking you for specific evidence to support your apparent assertion that Oswald was being “controlled” by the CIA or some other nefarious force in the weeks prior to the assassination. In the absence of this evidence, there is no reason to believe Ruth Paine or anyone else had an ulterior motive in helping him get the TSBD job, which, as I hope you’ve noticed, is the title of this thread.
-
5 minutes ago, John Cotter said:
What I meant was that if the conspirators were controlling Oswald, it necessarily follows that they were responsible for him getting the job in the TSBD.
Please detail any evidence whatsoever that Oswald was being "controlled" by anyone in the weeks prior to the assassination.
-
1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:
The insistence on making this aspect of the assassination complicated is truly baffling.
Indeed it is. It's also standard procedure for people like Sandy Larsen, who believe in other ludicrous. comically overwrought and complex conspiracy theories like "Harvey and Lee."
-
38 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:
Ruth’s own father told the FBI words to the effect that the only way in hell Ruth would ever allow Marina to stay with her was if she had an extreme interest in her. Ruth corroborated this by saying that she wanted Marina to stay with her because she found her interesting and wanted to learn Russian from a native speaker.
I don’t think kindness had anything to do with it.
Sooo…. “Kindness” and finding someone interesting enough to want to spend time with them and help them through a difficult time can’t be one and the same?
-
32 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:
Matt, would you say it was "Normal" in the 1960's to write letters in Russian to a Russian immigrant that you could stay at our house and we could claim you as a dependent AND.. we can even pay $10.00 a week the equivalent to $90+ dollars today to live at our house. Does that sounds like something any quaker woman would do in the 1960's?
https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1963?amount=10Your phrasing makes it sound suspicious, when in reality, given the actual circumstances for all of the involved parties, it's not suspicious at all. However difficult it may be to understand now, Ruth's invitation to Marina came from a place of kindness, not from orders given by her non-existent CIA handlers.
-
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:
I believe that:
- Oswald was a CIA agent.
- Ruth and Michael Paine were CIA assets.
- Ruth was probably baby sitting Marina for the CIA.
- Oswald wasn't told that Ruth was CIA, and Ruth wasn't told that Oswald was CIA. But they probably all suspected that that was the case.
- Ruth was instructed by her CIA handler to get Oswald to apply for the TSBD job, and Oswald was instructed by his handler to do what Ruth said.
So regarding the telephone tap, when Michael heard that a shooter at the TSBD had shot Kennedy, he guessed right away that that was the reason Ruth was told to get Oswald to work there. So he told Ruth he was sure Oswald had shot Kennedy. But then he added that they both knew who was responsible, because they figured that the CIA had put Oswald up to it. And so the CIA was responsible.
Every single point you’ve listed is pure conjecture and is unsupported by actual hard evidence. Give it up already!
-
33 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:
Roy Hargraves is the Umbrella Man and Witt committed perjury. So obsurd keeping the exact same umbrella 15 years later.
Totally incorrect. Witt is without a doubt the Umbrella Man.
-
1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:
And the problem is you're so married to that speculative theory that you're now ignoring all the evidence that contradicts it.
Which is, of course, the organizing principle of Sandy Larsen's presence on this forum.
-
8 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:
Armstrong proves with his exhaustive research
that Oswald did not own the rifle or the revolver
placed into what he called the "so-called evidence"
against him.
He does absolutely nothing of the kind, nor does he even come close to proving his preposterous theory about two distinct Oswalds running amok all over the world for years.
-
54 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
It's a ridiculous notion that the plotters would leave up to chance where they would prepare and execute an assassination and escape plan. They probably had been planning for months. As others have pointed out, the TSBD moved into that building earlier that year. It was probably a CIA front and safe house.It was “probably” this… it was “maybe” that. As usual, Sandy Larsen has no actual evidence to support his mountain of what-ifs.
-
19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
No, I'm saying that the plotters were controlling whoever got Oswald to take a job at the TSBD. The plotters needed to make sure that Oswald got a job there so that he would be there to take his (unwitting) role as patsy.
If Linnie May and Ruth were not under control of the plotters, then how is it that Oswald just happened to get a job where the plotters needed hm to be? By sheer coincidence?
Yes, by sheer coincidence! Good lord -- why is this so hard to understand? Are you trying to claim that the "plotters" knew they'd specifically be utilizing the Texas School Book Depository to assassinate JFK weeks before the general public ever knew he was coming to Dallas, much less the motorcade route being announced?
Oswald was already working in the building. Why do you seem incapable of considering the possibility that the TSBD was only chosen to be utilized after Oswald's arrival there?
-
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:
I don't know the details on how Oswald got the job. But anybody who claims they helped Oswald get the job either did so for the CIA or is lying. Because the only other alternative is that Oswald miraculously chose the right place to get a job, and I don't believe in miracles.
Then you're just cosplaying as a real researcher. People who take this field seriously don't bury their heads in sand and start from a position that integral figures in the case are automatically CIA plants or li*rs.
-
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
It is just now becoming more accepted that Oswald was never actually in Mexico City. His roles were played by imposters, the most widely recognized one being the blond-haired one who visited the Cuban Consulate.
What I've discovered is this: When one accepts that none of the Oswald activities in Mexico City actually involved the real Oswald, and then one re-analyzes the evidence keeping that in mind, the more one's mind becomes uncluttered and the more one begins to understand the whole Mexico City incident.
It is my understanding the John Newman still assumes that Oswald was actually in Mexico City. Even though there are plenty of reasons to believe he wasn't. John Newman is going to have quite a surprise once he quits assuming that, IMO.
"Once he quits assuming that" ? Do you think John Newman just blithely "assumes" things about one of the most important and controversial aspects of this entire case?
-
41 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:
Here's a good article on why people believe lies. You'll recognized some of the traits as those of "lone nutters" ( # 5 especially is one I've cited in the past ).
Gil Jesus spreading around listicles about why "good people believe lies" is pretty ironic considering he likes to post transphobic lies such as "God determined that kid's sex. Not a kindergarten teacher, God Almighty. And he doesn't make any mistakes."
-
12 minutes ago, Allen Lowe said:
Well you do have things backwards and upside down as usual David. As does almost everyone else here. But for you I say, if Lee Harvey Oswald did this thing by himself it makes no sense that he would go and wait for third parties to get him into the Depository. He wants to kill the president, he’s got to get a job in that building. he cannot take a chance. So then the question is who got him in there? I have no idea, but it had to be… A conspirator. So David you’ve disproved your own argument. Everybody’s been lying.
Boy, you really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you? Oswald didn’t “wait for third parties to get him into the Depository” for the purpose of assassinating JFK. He’d already been working there for weeks before the motorcade route was even announced. Why you claim that “the question is who got him in there” is beyond me. Linnie Mae Randle heard that the TSBD might need seasonal help and told Ruth Paine, who then told Oswald. The end.
-
1 hour ago, Allen Lowe said:
What is very wrong with this picture?
Your analysis.
-
57 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
... and why did the Commission and FBI not refer the Paines to the Justice Department?
On what grounds? What would you like them to have been charged with?
zFrame 341 looks like a bullet exiting the front of the windshield.
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
This is some John Butler-level absurd photo analysis here. There is no way on earth anything like this could have been captured by Zapruder's camera and this is certainly not "a replacement frame."