Jonathan Cohen

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.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Despite what may have been said to Marguerite Oswald, neither of the Paines stepped forward to assist with Oswald’s civil liberties in the aftermath of his arrest.

Your complaint is that the Paine family didn't do MORE for the Oswalds than they already had?

4 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

And in fact appeared on local television shortly after his death to advance not just his guilt for the assassination but to also assert what would later form the official profile - that he was a little man trying to be something bigger than he was.

So what? They believed that's exactly what he was, and had ample first-hand observations to back it up. Are you implying they should have just automatically declared he was innocent in spite of their legitimate reasons for believing the contrary?

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

One can only conclude there were two Oswalds at the TSBD.

Correction : YOU conclude there were two Oswalds. As has been demonstrated on this forum many times, hardly ANY serious assassination researchers believe in this nonsensical theory, nor is said theory necessary to explain the Nash Rambler sighting. Roger Craig was simply mistaken, much like so many of the Dealey Plaza witnesses who got basic facts about the shooting slightly incorrect in their retelling of events. There’s nothing nefarious about it.

1 hour ago, Steve Roe said:

These reckless and false claims about Ruth Paine on this forum are of course without merit and belong in the trash. 

Related to the topic, even Harold Weisberg never bought into the Oswald Minox Camera fantasy. http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/S Disk/Stewart James L/Item 01.pdf

Steve, well said. And thank you to Greg for laying out this issue in such detail. It’s a stark contrast to what increasingly passes for original research on this forum, a la multiple Lee Oswalds running around the world framing one another, multiple Marguerites morphing from “attractive” to “dumpy,” a Marina Oswald who knowingly had two “different” husbands, Oswald “face masks” being grafted onto people in the Altgens 6 photo, and so on.

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

The two shared various things over time.  Clothes, equipment, and Marina.

Well, it only took 12 pages for this thread to devolve into "Harvey and Lee" nonsense. John, out of curiosity, if Marina was aware that she "shared" two nearly identical husbands and was in on the plot, why on God's green earth did she consent to the 1981 exhumation?

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

A big question that a lot of folks have not considered is why Ruth Paine allowed her husband's possessions to be taken by the DPD officers.  With all of Oswald's cameras, camera equipment, and other items there why was Michael's alleged possessions included?  Michael Paine was not a criminal or criminal suspect.  He was not charged with a crime or was a suspect.    

Because these possessions could have been material in the Dallas police's investigation of the Kennedy assassination due to Oswald's presence in the Paine's home? And because the Paines had nothing to hide? Why is that so hard to understand?

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Greg claims that the suspicions of Ruth Paine being CIA by her coworkers originated with a JFKA researcher. And so it is unfair to cite that story to support the claims of JFK researchers who say she was CIA. Which would make sense if Greg's claim were true.

Decades worth of TV and print interviews, acting suspicious in Nicaragua .. boy, that Ruth sure keeps a high profile for being a CIA agent, doesn't she? Of course there is still not a single shred of evidence she was involved in any way in a conspiracy against Lee Oswald.

30 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Indeed.  What will they think?  What will they think reading Jonathan, Greg's, and others similar work?  Would they think what I am thinking?  I can't say what I am really thinking for fear of running afoul of the Forum's rules.  

They'll think what an overwhelming majority of forum members and the worldwide community of assassination researchers think: that your theories about cars with their roofs going in the wrong direction, multiple Marguerite Oswalds prancing around the United States and "Harvey face masks" added to the Dealey Plaza photo record are an embarrassment to serious study of the Kennedy assassination.