Jonathan Cohen
-
Posts
1,184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Jonathan Cohen
-
-
28 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
Ruth Paine appeared in almost every POS TV special that the WC backers ever made. Not just that, she was there for the reception of that POS film endorsing the WR a few years back.
So what? She believes Oswald assassinated President Kennedy, and she has every right to tell her version of the story if she's asked to do so.
-
8 hours ago, Derek Thibeault said:
Honestly - Ruth Paine seems to like the attention, I don't think this has been this tragic for her. She is still talking even at her advanced age.
Hardly. She liked the attention so much that she moved to Nicaragua for years. In fact, she's "still talking even at her advanced age" because she is still being bothered by "researchers" who believe she was somehow involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald.
-
1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said:
Weirdly, I started a thread about this a couple weeks ago, and not a single person replied. I was entertained by Oliver Stone's take on the subject, but I'm eager to see what a director of Mamet's caliber will do with it.
-
10 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
Pat:
Does that forum still exist?
Jim, I can't tell if you're being serious or not. If the former, are you actually asking if Duncan's forum is currently active?
-
3 hours ago, John Butler said:
There are literally thousands of facts pointing to the spy doubles, H&L.
As usual, your definition of the word "facts" is different than practically anybody else's on this forum besides Professor/forensic dentist/fake motion picture analyst Sandy Larsen.
3 hours ago, John Butler said:I never thought I would have seen it, but Jim Hargrove finally gave up trying to have a discussion with those two.
Finally!
-
10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Before moving on, I want to undo some damage to my reputation that Jonathan Cohen may have caused.
(Of course, everybody makes a mistake now and then, and I've made my own. There is no shame in getting something wrong, as long as one remains honest and takes reasonable care in their actions. But...)
I don't want to be accused of making a mistake in cases where I have not made a mistake! And I have not made a mistake regarding this Secret Service copy of the Z film. (So far... knock on wood.)
Here is what I originally said:
We now know that alterations were indeed made. And that their creation required human intervention. It was the "telecine" process that created them.
The purpose of "telecine" is to transfer a cinematographic film to a television signal (thus the name). Doing so usually means changing the refresh rate of the movie. For example, the film might have a refresh rate of 18 frames per second (fps) whereas original television in the U.S. has a refresh rate of 30 fps. Without going into details (like "interlacing") this means that some frames of the TV signal must be "double exposed" with two consecutive frames of the film in order to make the conversion fit.
This double exposure is an alteration intentionally created by human intervention. And that is what I said those double exposures indicated. I never said they were signs of government coverup. In fact, I said that nobody should leap out of their chairs in excitement, because I couldn't figure out why these alterations were made.
Well, now thanks to Tyler we all know why those alterations were made. There is nothing nefarious in those particular alterations we see in the Z film shown in the Secret Service video.
You don't need any help from me to damage your reputation. You've done it all by yourself on this thread! Do you really expect us to believe that by using the word "alteration" you weren't implying some conspiratorial motive on the part of the "alterationists" ? Nobody went in and created those double exposures on purpose. They are simply part of the transfer process, as Mark and Chris have shown. So your use use of the word "alteration" to describe them is disingenuous, to say the least...
-
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
You don't find it obvious that those double images are due to double exposing the film? What else could possibly do that doubling?
Mark Tyler has just explained it to you. So much for your "obvious facts." I won't wait around for your apology.
-
19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
If you're not an LNer, then why do you object to my observations about the selective double exposures we seen in the copy of the Z film in that Secret Service film? I'm merely stating obvious facts. Only an LNer would disagree with facts that tend to contradict the WC findings.
What you deem to be "obvious facts" are merely your own personal interpretations of something that could have multiple, non-conspiratorial explanations. And this, of course, is the crux of the problem.
-
57 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Well, I don't think Jonathan would trust Oliver Stone's expertise on this (or any other) topic given that he's an LNer.
And once again, Sandy proves that his reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired. I'm not sure how many times I've said it on this forum, but I guess for Sandy's benefit I will have to say it again: I am not a "LNer." What I am is someone who simply doesn't buy the absolutely absurd conspiracy theories peddled here by Sandy, John Butler and others.
-
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Well, similarly, what we see here is "selective double exposure," which is also not a natural phenomenon. Someone had to have decided to double expose parts of the frame but not other parts. And then someone had to have determined a method for doing so. (Making a double exposure is trivial. But doing so on just some elements of the subject being photographed is not.)
As usual, you instantly turn conspiratorial without even stopping for a second to consider mundane, alternative explanations. Do you have any idea what the provenance of this copy of the film is? Clearly it is of poor quality. How do you know these anomalies you claim to see aren't artifacts of a multi-generational copying process?
-
9 hours ago, Paul Cummings said:
The Three Tramps located in the train box car were Charles Rogers, Charles Harrelson and Chauncey Holt. Lois Gibson (forensic expert) identified Holt as the third tramp. Chauncey Holt IMO doesn't get enough discussion on these threads and his taped interview by his daughter (since taken down on youtube) is fascinating and very detailed.
This is absolutely, completely wrong. Thanks to the research of Mary La Fontaine, It has been well established for 30 years that the three men were Gus Abrams, Harold Doyle and John Gedney, that they were in fact actual itinerant "tramps" and had nothing to do with the assassination whatsoever.
-
1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Second, he had no history of violence.
Tell that to Marina, whom Oswald beat repeatedly ...
-
25 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:
If it isn't Oswald, all the evidence placing Oswald on the first floor still stands, but the lone assassin types still get a major win - and we find out who the hell was really standing there, and if it is Oswald the JFK case gets reopened. Is that not a win-win for everyone interested in the truth?
If Oswald was on the Depository steps during the assassination, I find it highly implausible he would not have trumpeted his whereabouts to every single police officer or reporter he came in contact with following his arrest. I also find it implausible that none of the other people in the doorway would have come forward to say Oswald was, in fact, standing with them in the midst of the shooting. That said, I welcome and support more detailed study of the Darnell and Weigman films.
-
26 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
There is a good deal of strong circumstantial evidence that requires Oswald being intentionally placed at the TSBD for the purpose of playing patsy in the assassination plot.
It is for that reason that I believe some of the witnesses lied about how Oswald got the job there.
Even IF you are correct that Oswald was "intentionally placed" there (and that's a big "if"), it in no way requires Ruth Paine to have been involved in the conspiracy. Further, your theory flies in the face of the fact that Oswald was hired on Oct. 15, a month before the public was even informed that the motorcade would travel through downtown Dallas.
-
On 6/26/2022 at 9:01 AM, Gil Jesus said:
As far as Trump asking to "invent" votes, I believe the term he used was "find me" votes and it depends on what he meant by "find".
He may have talking about disallowing questionable ballots, because that would have the same effect as if they had found votes for him. This is what the phone call was all about--disallowing questionable ballots, not inventing ballots for him. Or he could have just been talking about a recount.
You've got to be kidding me. NOBODY on the receiving end of that call walked away from it thinking that Trump was politely asking them to "disallow questionable ballots." It is 100% clear that he wanted and expected the Georgia officials to illegally add votes to his total in that state.
-
I'm intrigued to see what David Mamet does with the source material here.
-
36 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:
Just what we all wanted another Hijack thread between Larsen and Cohen. You guys need to settle some issues privately.
I didn't hijack this thread! Sandy resurfaced something from an entirely different thread and is now falsely claiming I have "changed" my objection to his theory - I won't respond further in this one.
-
15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Oh I see. According to you then, Ruth would know only that Oswald worked for the CIA, but wouldn't know that he was an agent of the CIA.
Uhhh, no. Completely wrong for many reasons, chief among them being that Ruth Paine was not employed by the CIA in any way, shape or form. What I am objecting to is the preposterous notion on your part that these two alleged CIA agents were going about their government business at the exact same time in the same town, often in the same home, but that their handlers saw it fit to never mention this to either of them.
-
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
When are you gonna explain to everybody how it would be possible for Ruth Paine to know that Oswald was a CIA agent, just because he stayed in her house? As you mockingly claimed a few days ago.
Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. What I disputed was your evidence-free theory that both Ruth and Lee were independently working for the CIA and had no idea that the other was as well.
-
6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
In short, I believe that the Hunt photo disproves what the NIST photo shows and not the other way around.
And naturally, you are the only one now clinging to the belief that Todd's initials aren't there, even when Dr. Mantik himself has acknowledged his earlier mistake. Not surprising, considering you believe that nearly every piece of evidence in this case is fake, and that there were two Lee Harvey Oswald and Marguerite Oswalds running amok across the Southeastern United States.
-
15 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:
God determined that kid's sex. Not a kindergarten teacher, God Almighty. And he doesn't make any mistakes.
This is one of the most embarrassing, out of touch posts I've ever seen on this forum.
-
On 6/20/2022 at 5:31 PM, Pat Speer said:
They didn't study the photos posted on this thread. They had the negatives and the original prints to work with. The photos you are looking at are probably photos of photos that had been printed in books. So let's see. There's the original negative. Then a photo made from that negative. Then a photo of that photo that was printed in a book. Then a digital copy scanned from that book, or perhaps even a digital copy scanned from a photo of a photo in that book. Either way, that's a long way down, a long way in which the relative contrast within the photo could have been changed, and details could have been lost.
This is the same reason Tom Wilson's claims of being able to detect widespread alteration in the assassination photo record never rang true to me -- he was studying multiple-generation copies, and not the original evidence.
-
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Greg,
As I said earlier, there is very strong circumstantial evidence that the CIA directed Ruth Paine to suggest to Oswald to apply for the job at the TSBD. I believe that the CIA directed Oswald to follow Ruth's advice. (They would do it that way in order to maintain Ruth's and Oswald's fronts, and to keep their respective CIA jobs compartmented.)
Given that, let's suppose for a moment that we can read Ruth's mind after the assassination. What would she think? Following is how I think her thinking would progress.
Ruth and Michael hear news reports of the assassination, and that it is suspected that the shots came the TSBD.
Ruth had already suspected that Oswald was, or might be, a CIA asset... a natural assumption given that the CIA was directing her to interface with him. She had just gotten him a job at the TSBD for the CIA and now the president was killed by somebody there.
Naturally she was concerned that somehow Oswald was involved in the assassination. Maybe he even shot the president himself! If so, the CIA was probably behind the assassination plot. Or, upon thinking more positively, maybe Oswald was there to thwart the assassination attempt, but failed. Or, hopefully it's just a big coincidence.
Then they hear Oswald was arrested. Well, there goes the hopeful thinking.
Now, the assassination plot was designed to have the U.S. government believe that Cuba and Russia were the perpetrators. But instead the government decides to cover that plot up (which they may not have believed anyway) and nip the conspiracy rumors in the bud by making Oswald the lone gunman.
The Feds gather evidence from the Paines and get their statements.
Then, some time before the Warren Commission hearing, the Feds hold a secret meeting with the Paines and confides with them that the evidence indicates that the assassination was the result of a communist conspiracy. They fear that if this information is revealed, it will likely lead to a nuclear showdown and WW3. The Feds ask the Paines to cooperate with them in placing the full blame behind the alleged and now-dead shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald. It was there patriotic duty to cooperate.
Well of course the Paines would go along with that. Who wants WW3?
But the question for us is this: What would Ruth Paine be thinking about Oswald after that? And about the CIA? And the U.S. government?
I think that Ruth would be very confused at this point. The U.S. government -- who she'd probably believe above all -- say it was a communist plot. Oswald had shown some interest in communism, having once defected to Russia. So yes, he could have shot the president for the communists. (Whoever exactly they are.) But then, why did the CIA direct her to get Oswald the job at the TSBD? She thought Oswald was a CIA asset, not a communist. And that he was not a Kennedy hater.
Ruth probably had no idea what to make of all this. I think she was confused and believed only what the government told her. And that the lying she did for the WC helped the U.S. government in their fight against communism. Which is what she had always done for the government.
Ruth would have had no reason to quit working for the CIA.
More absolutely preposterous, fact-free speculation from Sandy Larsen, who apparently expects us to believe that two CIA operatives were working out of the same suburban Dallas-area house without ever knowing that they were employed by the same nefarious government agency.
Then, you claim "The Feds" had a secret meeting with the Paines during which they revealed that the assassination was a "communist conspiracy." And you expect us to then believe that Ruth Paine has been lying on behalf of the government while testifying to official, government inquiries and giving interviews to journalists for the next six decades??
-
16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Hmm... Maybe Ruth wasn't as good a person I assumed she was.
Do you know how many MILLIONS of people around the world were "glad" that Ruby shot Oswald in the wake of the assassination, because for whatever reason they had decided Oswald must be guilty? Truly, who cares? Are we really going to get into a debate about this, 59 years later?
Bell Film Gifs Part 1
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Your observation is wrong.