Jonathan Cohen

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I believe that Ruth Paine was/is essentially a good person and was/is very patriotic. I believe that she was anti-communist, which back then was considered to be a patriotic position to take, and to some degree still is. And yes, I believe that she reported on American communists to the CIA.

But what I believe is that she lied to the WC in order to help cover up the Russian/Cuban/Oswald conspiracy that the evidence pointed to. (The false flag operation by the CIA was designed to have Russia and Cuba blamed for the killing, with Oswald being the American point guy for this fake conspiracy.) I believe that the government told Ruth that the assassination APPEARED to be an international conspiracy (which BTW was true), and that President Johnson had directed the FBI to bury it (also true) for fear that it might otherwise lead to WW3. It was Ruth's patriotic duty to help the government put the blame only on Oswald. If that meant her planting some anti-Oswald evidence, so be it.

But that is my conspiracy theory. I don't get upset at others for being hard on Ruth because they have their own theories and Ruth probably does look like a scoundrel from their points of view.

BTW, I'll bet that being a Quaker was her cover. But that's pure speculation on my part.

Of all the nonsensical posts on this forum, this doozy by Sandy Larsen takes the cake. Do you actually expect us to believe that "CIA asset" Ruth Paine was permitted to testify at length in front of the Warren Commission and then proceed to give interviews to journalists and researchers for the next 59 years? Is the CIA in the habit of exposing their valuable assets in public forums for decades on end? Regarding your preposterous "pure speculation" that Ruth Paine pretended to be a Quaker, the less said about that, the better.

51 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Who knows what happened to Lee. 

I'm not going to get back into a debate about the teeth again, since this has been discussed many times previously, and numerous alternative explanations have been presented that don't involve doppelgangers. But the fact that "Harvey and Lee" adherents just shrug their shoulders about "who knows what happened to Lee" should tell everyone all they need to know about this preposterous theory.

7 hours ago, John Butler said:

As you can see Lee Oswald and Harvey Oswald had many faces.  Can you determine which is which?

Every single one of these photos is of Lee Harvey Oswald, your highly questionable photo analysis skills notwithstanding.

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Six different news reports from the daily paper covering Stripling School over a period of more than 40 years were all wrong that LHO attended Stripling, and no one ever pointed out the “error” and printed a retraction.

Robert Oswald was wrong when he swore LHO attended Stripling.  

Robert Galindo, the principal of Stripling School, was wrong when he told John A. that it was “common knowledge” that LHO attended Stripling.  

Stripling student Fran Schubert was wrong when she said, in a YouTube video, that she saw LHO walk home to 2220 Thomas Place just across the street from Stripling

The assistant principal of Stripling School completely made up his story that he gave LHO’s Stripling records to the FBI!

Thank you for nicely summarizing it. Indeed, every one of these people was either mistaken or misremembering. See how easy that was?

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Hey, I’m not the one making all the concessions you made on the first article on this page.  

And just to let you know, I’m going to continue posting H&L evidence right here until someone debunks it right here or Ed Forum administrators tell me to stop. Posting hundreds of links to other sites and claiming it has all been debunked there won’t work.  Everyone makes mistakes from time to time, but very little of John A’s basic research has ever been debunked, despite your claims otherwise.

You consider a "concession" to be an acknowledgement that something may be within the realm of possibility -- ie, the one and only historical Lee Oswald having been impersonated and/or having some kind of connection to a government agency? Just because something may be possible doesn't mean it actually happened! And give us a break regarding Armstrong's "research" having been debunked. It has been absolutely torn to shreds by numerous respected researchers, dating back more than 20 years. Your posting of the same listicles over and over and over again will never change that.

42 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Is there any evidence that the Soviets who monitored Oswald knew there were two? 

Absolutely none, which stands to reason, since there was one and only one Lee Harvey Oswald.

4 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

And she never met Lee? 

I'm glad you've asked this question, Paul. "Harvey and Lee" adherents have at various points claimed, without a shred of evidence, that Marina was "in on the plot" involving two distinct Oswalds and that she was intimately familiar with both doppelgangers. Not to mention their belief in multiple Marguerite Oswalds running amok across the United States for years ...

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

I think I once voiced the opinion why would Marguerite choose New York when there were competent psychological people In Dallas or New Orleans.  I answered that it is as said above in another quote, MK/Ultra.  

She must have been ordered to do such.  I think that ties in with Harvey's rebellion and trip to a far western state, Nebraska or some such.

John once again conjures the fanciful loud-mouthed spy version of Marguerite Oswald (was it the "attractive" one? or the "short, dumpy" one?), who apparently just couldn't resist mentioning vital operational details of her "orders" to a cleaning lady she'd just met. Boy, the CIA sure picked some top-notch operatives for their doppelganger missions, didn't they?

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

All this gives the impression that elements of the CIA and the FBI made a coordinated effort to give a clean bill of political health for LHO.  Concentrating on the mole hunt business, in my opinion, is just a smokescreen to take attention away from this remarkable coincidence.

These two documents, issued nearly simultaneously, clearly took the federal spotlight off Oswald less than two months before the assassination of JFK. 

How can there have been a "coordinated effort" to "give a clean bill of health" to someone who you claim was actually two different people?

7 hours ago, John Butler said:

No.  It is what the evidence shows.  In some cases what is interpreted from the evidence as in the case of Marie Muchmore.  More on this later.

So every other researcher who has spent years working on this case is wrong, and you, John Butler, have managed to discern hitherto unknown truths about the assassination that nobody else has?

34 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I don't think anyone takes this seriously except for me.  This is what I see in the films and witness testimonies.  But, as I said few if any believe that.  

Shouldn't that tell you something about your research methods and conclusions?

7 hours ago, Rick McTague said:

I think it is very important to note two alterations here: one being the black blob to conceal the occipital exit wound that was seen by many at Parkland, and two being the huge red - orange flap added to the right temple area which NO ONE saw at Parkland.

No one saw the right temple flap at Parkland because per her own testimony, Jackie Kennedy pressed it back together while in the limousine on the way to the hospital. This damage is clearly evident on the autopsy x-rays.

35 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Count me as the third person in this thread to question the providence of this frame, which is clearly not frame 313. That black patch is not evident on any copy of the film I have ever seen, and I fail to comprehend how it could be so clear in this and only this iteration of the frame in question.

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

When I read this, I see that you are really saying nuance (whatever that may be) is more important than evidence.  I have noticed this in your comments when you completely ignore facts and evidence presented to you by other researchers.  Would that be because various facts and pieces of evidence weren't nuanced enough for you to agree they have relevance in your way of thinking. 

So, you can say that there was evidence of Oswald being impersonated, but that doesn't count because he was impersonated in a non-nuanced way?  This about right? 

100% dead wrong. There's no other way to say this than to point out that your interpretation above is as colossally off-base as the overall "Harvey and Lee" theory. My use of the word "nuance" was meant to distinguish that evidence of Oswald imposture does not mean he was impersonated, or that reports of same are legitimate. Greg Doudna, Tracy Parnell, Greg Parker, Jeremy B and many, many others have pointed out numerous issues with the "second Oswald" sightings and/or alternative explanations for them, so there is simply no reason for me to debate them further here one by one. But please, let the "Harvey and Lee" gang continue talking amongst themselves...

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Is it true, Jeremy, that you and Jonathan Cohen "have always agreed that there is evidence Oswald was impersonated at various points in his life?"

THIS is what passes for “astonishing” in “Harvey and Lee” land? I said we agree that there is EVIDENCE Oswald was impersonated. That’s a big difference than saying he WAS impersonated, but nuance doesn’t seem to be a tool wielded very often by you and your devotees…

36 minutes ago, John Butler said:

More "delusional conspiratorial thinking" is really something to think about.  How about the description of John Armstrong, Jim Hargrove, and yours truly being supporters of the Warren Commission due to the Harvey and Lee theory?  Harvey and Lee as a theory supports the WC conclusions.

You believe one of the Oswald doppelgangers was involved in the assassination. The Warren Commission believes Oswald committed the assassination. Looks pretty similar to me!

28 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I noticed some time back that Jonathan said he and Jeremy agreed on various things.  Working together? 

More evidence of delusional conspiratorial thinking by John Butler, who, if he'd bother to ask or check, would have quickly learned that Jeremy and I have never met nor corresponded prior to when I began posting more regularly on this forum a couple years ago. But in the words of the sorely missed Robert Charles Dunne, do continue ...

17 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Whenever Jonathan Cohen hurls the insults like above, I'm posting this:

David Mantik, Joseph McBride, Dr. James Norwood, David Josephs, Robert Groden, among many others, including many others on this forum, have held Harvey and Lee in the highest regard.  If memory serves, Mr. Mantik once said it was his favorite book on the subject.  John Armstrong has been a guest on Len Osanic's Black Op Radio at least a dozen times..

So what? Just because a book was written on the subject doesn't mean it is credible. Do you believe the theory that William Greer shot President Kennedy from within the presidential limousine is credible? If not, by your logic you should, just because there was a book written about it.

The fact that John Armstrong has appeared on Black Op Radio does nothing to enhance the credibility of his absurd theory. In fact, of the Armstrong episodes I've listened to, he is mostly reading from a prepared script rather than engaging in any meaningful conversation or debate. I'm similarly unimpressed with an endorsement from Robert Groden, especially after he tried to pass off a fake photograph as a "never before seen" autopsy image in his latest book. If this is the best that "Harvey and Lee" adherents can come up with, it's a pretty sad state of affairs.

51 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Jonathan,

That's just wishful thinking on your part.  There are way to many facts for you to wish away.  The explanation is not simple.  This is reality and complex.

Your definition of "facts" is different than just about every serious Kennedy assassination researcher's definition, which explains why the "Harvey and Lee" theory is the most derided and laughed it in the entire case.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

That's a lot of impersonations.  Could there be a simpler explanation?

Of course there’s a simpler explanation, and it has literally been pointed out to you on this forum over and over again for years: the witnesses were mistaken or confused or making things up, the evidence on which these sightings are based is being interpreted incorrectly after the fact (ie, the school records issue and your needlessly conspiratorial analysis of Robert Oswald’s recall of dates and places vis-a-vis where his brother was and when) and so on.

And as mentioned repeatedly, impersonation of Oswald does not have to mean it was part of a preposterous long-term government program involving doppelgängers.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. B. goes on and on saying how John A. and I are dishonest and saying we wear "tin foil hats" and those sorts of insults, but the truth is, there is a trainload of evidence for Two Oswalds.

Dead wrong, as usual. Jeremy and I have always agreed that there is evidence Oswald was impersonated at various points in his life. But that does not mean the impersonations were part of some absolutely preposterous long-term doppelganger project. The implication that Sylvia Meagher's writings somehow support the "Harvey and Lee" theory is profoundly off-base.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Absolutely serious. I list the ways in which the known evidence can be consistent.

What you've actually listed are ludicrous leaps in logic that involve such caveats as "there is reason to believe" and "I believe" ...

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Events with astronomically long odds almost never happen. You apparently cannot recognize such an event, don't understand the implications of it, and therefore cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from it.

The ignorance of this statement is breathtaking, but not surprising coming from someone who believes suburban Dallas housewives with young children are actually CIA agents and that there were multiple Marguerite Oswalds up to no good all over the American south throughout the last century. Just for reference, here's a list of dozens of "events with astronomically long odds" that did, in fact, happen.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Oh come on Greg... you can't seriously believe that Ruth's innocent suggestion for Oswald to apply for work at the TSBD just happened -- by some insane coincidence -- to put Oswald where he needed to be for the Big Event!

I don't know how to calculate the odds of that actually happening, but I'm certain its going to be astronomically long.

 

So what? Are you under the impression that consequential events in history never happen due to random coincidences such as this? To pretend otherwise is absurd.

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

What did Ruth Paine do for Lee?  As far as I can see the key thing she did was to separate Lee from Marina. And this began within three weeks of her meeting the Oswalds. The other thing she did was help get him a job at the TSBD.  The way that turned out, well, not so sure you want to count that one.  (I won't even go into all the extenuating circumstances about the TSBD.)

Jim, your question pre-supposes some obligation on the part of the Paines to do ANYTHING at all for the Oswald family. Everything they DID do was out of kindness and concern for their well-being, particularly the pregnant Marina, whom Lee could barely support financially, emotionally or otherwise. Did Ruth "separate" Lee and Marina by somehow convincing Lee to move to New Orleans? No, she did not. And in fact, she drove Marina across the country to New Orleans once Lee was "ready" for her to join him there. If Ruth was so hell-bent on keeping Marina and Lee apart, why did she then allow Lee to come to her home in Irving every weekend to visit once the Oswalds returned from New Orleans? And yes, she helped Lee get his job at the TSBD. So what? Is it so impossible to simply chalk this up to a quirk of history, rather than some nefarious conspiracy?

10 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

To do what they did to Oswald's name after the assassination?  How anyone could not think something was up when Oswald was murdered on live TV in the arms of the Dallas Police?  By a patriotic strip club owner?

I will tell you what I would have done as a result of that if I was Michael.  I would have queried into who Jack Ruby was.  And I mean really done some investigating.  Why would someone do that live on TV knowing they would be apprehended?  Why would they kill this "little guy" who was oh so guilty anyway?

Now, go ahead and try and find any evidence that they Paines did that?  Because I cannot.

As stated earlier, they had numerous reasons to believe Oswald was guilty. What they did or didn't do following Oswald's murder is, frankly, irrelevant. They had no obligation to DO or SAY anything! Nobody is claiming the Paines are perfect, but that hardly opens the door to accuse them of somehow being involved in a plot to frame Oswald of the Kennedy assassination.