Jonathan Cohen

Here you go trotting out Jack White again - a man whose HSCA testimony clearly demonstrates his lack of actual expertise in photographic analysis (to say nothing of his preposterous faked moon landing and 9/11 hoax punditry). Can you point to any professional photographic analysis -- not amateur, armchair sleuthing the likes of which is done on this forum -- that supports your claim the backyard photographs are fakes?

No, because there aren't any differences, and they are the exact same child (and always have been).

This is not in any way what the John Martin film shows, but OK...

This doesn't answer Jeremy's question. Just because the "talents" of Eastern European refugees were "exploited" after World War II, how does that in any way support the specific implementation of a long-term doppelganger project involving the variables Jeremy outlined above (two boys who maybe, just maybe, would grow up to look identical, two identical mothers, etc.) ?

John, stop for a second and think about what you're saying. Are you suggesting that during the assassination, one "Oswald" was inside the Texas School Book Depository, and the other "Oswald" was standing in the doorway of the building? If so, what measures were in place to make sure the two "Oswalds" didn't accidentally run right smack into one another, thus foiling the entire decades-long doppelganger project? Why on earth would the conspirators risk that happening at the absolute most important moment of the conspiracy? Considering that "Harvey and Lee" theorists still can't get their stories straight on which "Oswald" was which some 57 years after the crime, the rhetorical question of whether Roger Craig could "have identified one Oswald from the other" seems particularly moot...

As has been covered on this forum over and over again, the Moorman photos were never altered. Just for fun, I'd love for you to explain to us how and when the evil plotters painted trees onto a Polaroid a few inches in size -- an alteration that apparently went undetected until you discovered it?

The answer, quite simply, is that nobody really knows what this memo was all about, but it appears to be a rather benign mix of paranoia on the part of Marguerite Oswald and imprecise language on the part of Hoover. This article offers a clear-eyed analysis and provides valuable background information. Tracy Parnell has also covered this subject extensively on his own site. Again, the larger point is that EVEN IF someone was (or was attempting to) impersonate Oswald as far back as 1960, there is ZERO evidence it was connected to some larger, decades-long conspiracy to pass off two distinct people (and their mothers) as one.

Just so we are clear, what specific 1960 impersonation are you referring to?

Whoever it may have been, WHY does it have to be as part of a long-term doppelganger program? Is there truly no other possible explanation? In reality, the refusal to consider alternative explanations is all Harvey and Lee adherents have going for them, not the other way around.

It absolutely does NOT "explain best" these anomalies, which is why hardly anybody takes this theory seriously.

Because the arguments have already been made, repeatedly. Such as here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/ As pointed out by Tracy and numerous others, Jim and fellow "Harvey and Lee" believers utilize discrepancies in the record to make a case for two Oswalds while completely ignoring other perfectly logical explanations. And when confronted with these alternative explanations, such as provided by Mark Stevens in the above-linked thread, they simply start new threads and copy and paste the same thing over and over. For what?

Numerous posters, here and elsewhere, have responded to the "school records controversy" with facts and logical arguments for years. The "Harvey and Lee" contingent simply refuses to acknowledge that their own interpretation of the records might actually have a logical explanation not predicated on two different Oswalds and two (or was it three?) different Marguerites. https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records?highlight=school+records https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1666-josephs-mangles-the-records-yet-again?highlight=school+records

Precisely. Most, if not all, of Calvin's posts cite similarly dubious sources. One might even call it trolling...

Not only has it been explained countless times on this very forum, but it has also been authoritatively debunked by actual researchers on other forums such as Greg Parker's. Same with the Bolton Ford incident. There are perfectly logical and reasonable explanations for both that do not require the ridiculous doppelganger theories you peddle here. Shouldn't there be a rule against your incessant spamming of this forum with the same posts over and over again? Jeremy is absolutely right that what was once a serious historical topic has been infested by hucksters, charlatans and deluded tin-foil-hatters. Jonathan please note Admin take a dim view using this forum to belittle and insult fellow members. If I have a third complaint about you you will be given a holiday from posting. By all means robustly challenge fellow members views but superior looking down on members and their views is not acceptable. James Gordon

Gee, here's an idea : they were simply mistaken or misspoke? Clearly that is far too simple and logical of an explanation for someone like you, who attaches a sinister and conspiratorial explanation for every anomaly in the evidence, no matter how insignificant it is...

The answer, of course, is that none are edited. As usual, you are imagining things that aren't there and making absurd pronouncements about "cut and paste" errors, boxcars that are actually signs and evil "giant machines" used to magnify the area of the overpass. Stop the madness !!

No, because not only is that ridiculous on its face, there is not a shred of evidence to support it. Zapruder spent the rest of his life after the assassination haunted by what he had witnessed.

I can't follow much of anything you said above. Do you or do you not believe Zapruder was chosen by nefarious plotters to film the assassination? Either way, your theory about the intent and purpose of an "official" movie, just like the "all Dealey Plaza films were altered" nonsense, falls apart because how could the plotters have prevented against other films and photos surfacing that wildly contradicted their altered "official" version? Why would the plotters go to these needlessly complicated lengths, when in reality, the Zapruder film is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for conspiracy in the case?

Are you implying the plotters "chose" Abraham Zapruder to film the "official movie of the killing" ?

First, there was no "Harvey." Never was. Second, as usual you and Jim Hargrove are completely misrepresenting what John Newman is saying above. The key line is "he could have been there and impersonated or could have been not there at all." As has been said on this forum probably hundreds of times, just because Oswald may have been impersonated in Mexico City DOES NOT MEAN such impersonation was part of a long-term doppelganger experiment. The two are not, and never have been, mutually exclusive.

Attention: John Butler! This is how to properly identify people in the Dealey Plaza photo record.

Are you suggesting some larger conspiracy to restrict the Dealey Plaza photo record to "certain sides of the vehicle" ? Not every question or anomaly in this case has to be the result of some massive cover-up. Isn't it entirely possible, even logical, that "we don't know anything about" the photographers you mention because a) they weren't actually holding cameras, and you're just misinterpreting the photos, b) they had cameras but didn't take any actual photos, c) they took photos but they didn't turn out, were blurry, etc. d) they intentionally didn't identify themselves to authorities due to the trauma of witnessing President Kennedy's murder from a few feet away?

John, Rather than getting bogged down in semantics, why not simply review the previous 86 pages of this thread, where posters like Jeremy, Robert Charles Dunne and Tracy Parnell have authoritatively shredded the Harvey and Lee theory?

The fact that he appeared before a House committee does not make his analyses correct, nor does his ad agency ownership, his interview with you 18 years ago or whether he's alive or dead. You appear to be asking for citations of White's work being debunked, so.. let's start with a 17-page thread on this very forum completely invalidating his claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked. Then let's move to Craig Lamson's demolition of White-endorsed theorizing about Zapruder film alteration. Shall I continue?

His analysis was neither sound mathematically or geometrically, as Josiah Thompson demonstrated here.