Jonathan Cohen

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 ).

https://goodfaithmedia.org/why-do-good-people-believe-lies/

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?

1 hour ago, David G. Healy said:

your problem young man, is your damn ego, EGO. And envy, ya just don't have the chops or the wherewithal to acquire them... becoming the argument is NOT the solution, I suspect even Galloway knows that... Give it a rest...

And your problem is a years-long series of incoherent jive talk postings that add nothing whatsoever to the research community.

28 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is almost funny Jonathan.. 

Can you please point out where Kirk has done anything of notice on the Paines in the past: where it was published and when etc?

Can you also please show me how many books Kirk has published on the case?  

Can you show me in those books where he has written about the Paines?

Let me know when you find this material by Kirk. 

Without it, his comments, like above, have the weight of helium.  About as much as Alesi's do. Which I will reply to later.

What an astonishing response. I guess you've at least come right out and said you don't believe anybody other than published authors such as yourself could possibly post anything here of value or substance. Now that we know your exacting standards, I guess the 99% of forum membership who aren't published authors should just bow at your feet and refrain from providing any of our own further input henceforth, simply because you've written books on the case?

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I saw Max's film. I thought Joe Alesi comes off very credibly as a real guy in the film,  and I would certainly believe him over  Di Eugenio innuendos.

Thank you Kirk, for once again providing a voice of reason on this forum.

15 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

From what I can see, that talk is from 2003.

That means its almost 20 years ago.

Are you saying nothing has happened in the interval?

No... I'm asking if you personally are aware of Dr. Newman changing his mind about Oswald physically being in Mexico City since he gave this presentation.

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The two CIA plants in the Cuban embassy both said he was never there.

John Newman says Oswald was in Mexico City in this extensive presentation. Has he completely changed his tune since then to align with your way of thinking?

37 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jonathan:

If there is one thing besides JFK's foreign policy that I have studied at length and depth, it is Oswald, the CIA and Mexico City.

I will match wits on this with anyone.

I stand by my statement.  Because the only way you can put him in Mexico City at that time is with quite dubious evidence.  That is how desperate the CIA was to place him there.

Sooo… every witness who saw and encountered him there, including employees of two embassies, is lying or wrong? The hotel registry is faked? The passport photo he took there is faked? The multiple people who saw and conversed with him on the bus are lying or wrong?

55 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jean Paul:

The Mexico letter is utterly fascinating.

Why?

Because the weight of the evidence today says Oswald was not there.

This is an inaccurate statement, Jim. There is ample evidence that the one and only historical Lee Oswald was physically in Mexico City. That also does not preclude him being impersonated there before, during or after.

7 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I think she was a witting babysitter, but not to an assassination plot.

At least Ron Bulman couches this post in "I think," because there's no actual evidence to support his claim, as Kirk Gallaway's earlier post summarizes so nicely.

7 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Of course, she and Michael knew who was responsible as soon as the assassination happened.  Thus, the phone call.  Then she became the WC's most favored witness, or far and away most questioned one.  Given her cooperative nature.

They were referring to Oswald as the one who was responsible, not some nefarious government force! Why is it that you have a problem with her being "cooperative," when she was in perhaps the best position of anyone to testify to Oswald's attributes and behavior in the months prior to the assassination?

8 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Right, Robert Oswald forfeited any credibility

by maligning his brother falsely as a killer.

What a ridiculous statement, but not surprising on a forum where people have espoused the belief that Robert was "in" on the secret program that created a doppelganger of his brother. It's also rather disappointing that a professional journalist such as yourself would flatly reject the point of view of one of the only people who actually knew Lee Oswald well.

2 hours ago, Roger DeLaria said:

@Joseph McBride

Excellent post. A lot of good information. Thank you 👍

And a lot of totally unsubstantiated speculation with no hard evidence to back it up, plus illogical dismissals of Robert Oswald's actions that are chalked up to "his willingness in his testimony and his 1967 book, Lee: A Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald, as well as in other venues, to help portray his late brother as an assassin." So according to Joseph McBride, everything Robert said is suspect because he personally believed his brother was the assassin? Such a position is absurd.

29 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Considering all the other New Orleans evidence, and there’s plenty of it, I think that probability very, very strongly favors the idea that Oswald’s FPCC activities were an intelligence operation from start to finish.

Tom, I'm perfectly willing to consider that possibility. But I think there's equally enough evidence to suggest that Oswald was being used without his knowledge by nefarious local forces and/or that he was initiating a lot of these contacts of his own volition. No CIA conspiracy necessary.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Only an LNer would say that nothing in that list of 17 items can be counted as circumstantial evidence of Oswald being a CIA agent.

 

And only someone such as yourself would waste time being dogmatic about "who" is "what" on this forum. Of the 17 items on your list, many have nothing to do with Oswald whatsoever, and others are subject to multiple, perfectly reasonable alternate interpretations that don't specifically involve Oswald being a CIA agent. In short, they don't in any way prove what you claim they prove.

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

So what you are saying, then, is that you're an LNer.

Gotcha!

 

A pathetic attempt to change the subject from the fact that your so called list of evidence is actually not in any way evidence of what you claim it to be.

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Okay... remove the two you object to, and the one possibly debunked by John Newman, and that leaves 17 pieces of circumstantial evidence pointing to Oswald being a CIA agent. With #17 (previously #20) being a virtual admission by CIA employee Ann Egerter that Oswald was a CIA employee who was being investigated by the counterintelligence unit.

 

Try again, Sandy.

James Wilcott’s testimony is worthless. Antonio Veciana’s credibility is less than zero on this issue, as his been demonstrated by numerous researchers. Points three and four are the most thin of evidence for anything. I am not aware of either Sprague or Schweiker saying publicly that Oswald “was associated with the CIA” - only that he bore “the fingerprints of intelligence.” That could mean anything, and is certainly not direct evidence for what you claim. There is zero evidence connecting Joannides with Oswald. And the Allen Dulles point has absolutely nothing to do with Oswald specifically.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Following is Jim Hargrove's list of evidence indicating that Oswald was a CIA agent

This list has been, and continues to be, largely worthless from an evidentiary standpoint... especially when it relies on people like Richard Case Nagell and amateur-level, preposterous logical leaps such as "Kenneth Porter, employee of CIA-connected Collins Radio, left his family to marry (and probably monitor) Marina Oswald after LHO’s death." Give me a break.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I would add to Jim's list the fact that Oswald hid his Russian Language abilities from the Russians. That certainly points to his being a CIA agent. Most people would want to show off their second-language skills.

 

Pure speculation on your part, and completely debunked by numerous acquaintances of Oswald in Minsk who routinely heard him speak Russian and conversed with him in same

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I can't think of a single thing Oswald did in the Soviet Union indicating he was an infiltrator or provocateur. But he did do one thing indicating he was a spy. And that is taking copious notes and writing his “Lives of Russian Workers” document.

What most people don't seem to know is that spying is often quite mundane. That was especially true in the Soviet Union given that there was no freedom to reside or even travel for foreigners. It was a challenge to gather information on even the simplest things in Soviet life. And that's what Oswald did.

 

Thank you for admitting that Oswald, in fact, didn't do a single thing that evinces him being a spy or U.S. government agent. There is zero reason to believe his note-taking and manuscript writing were anything other than his own personal attempts to chronicle his time in Russia, particularly if he hoped to one day publish them and become famous upon his return to the United States.