Jonathan Cohen

Tell the missing Lee and Marguerite doppelgangers it's as simple as that. I have a feeling they'd disagree.

We explain it by the fact that Jack White's analyses are wildly off-base and have been debunked time and again over the past 30 years. There's really nothing more to it than that. Not only did he make errors in terms of syncing multiple films and photos to a specific point during the assassination sequence, he made further observational errors about these so-called "completely different people" and their positions therein.

Your "eye for details" sees things in the assassination photo record that not only aren't there, but also defy logic and reality and have been debunked on countless occasions.

"Put there by a graphic artist" ? Is there no end to your preposterous, baseless allegations?

Robin, As usual, we owe you a debt of thanks for your work with these images. They clearly show what an alarming number of posters on this forum seem incapable of understanding: the photo record in Dealey Plaza is completely, internally consistent, which proves widespread forgery and alteration simply never happened.

It is the responsibility of those who INSIST every element of the Dealey Plaza photo record has been altered to show HOW this was done, not the other way around. You are the ones alleging widespread, almost incomprehensible levels of evidence tampering and forgery. Yet you want people who question it to prove the reverse? As long as the "everything was altered" camp continues to rely on the dubious and widely discredited amateur analysis of people like Jack White, James Fetzer, Ralph Cinque and John Butler, they will never be taken seriously. And that is a disservice to serious JFK case researchers who needn't waste their time with "Billy Lovelady facemasks" and multiple Marguerite Oswalds.

I'm not a "lone nut" believer by any means. You, and numerous other people on this board, seem to think anyone who questions some all-encompassing effort to tamper with every single piece of JFK assassination evidence must believe in a single assassin. The two are not mutually exclusive, except to the most close-minded individuals. But, please do go on explaining how the "plotters" could risk substantially altering some films but not others? Did they do such a good job that only now, 57 years later, are amateur sleuths on the Internet finally spotting the fakes?

I will once again beat a dead horse here and point out the clear flaw in this argument. How could the plotters ensure other conflicting films and photographs of the assassination wouldn't surface in the future and thus expose the altered Zapruder film as an obvious forgery? The answer is that they couldn't ensure any such thing, which is why, John Butler's dubious photo analysis notwithstanding, the photographic record of the assassination is a self-authenticating whole.

Tracy, and others: I'm curious if there are any late-to-the-party witnesses such as Wynne Johnson who really pass muster once their stories are subjected to scrutiny?

Tracy and I disagree on many aspects of the assassination, including how he has represented McAdams in this thread. But it is ignorant and downright wrong of you to call him a "disinformation artist." If anything, we are all in his debt for his superlative work destroying John Armstrong's ridiculous Oswald doppelganger theory.

Dr. Thompson has addressed both of these issues repeatedly over the past 30+ years -- both in print and in lectures. So what else is there to say about them? I'm more surprised that his work on the Dictabelt evidence is not generating more discussion here and in the research community, as it makes the strongest case yet for the recordings having actually captured the gunfire in Dealey Plaza.

"A Lovelady mask" ?? Does ANY serious researcher believe this nonsense? Where did the forgers get the "Lovelady mask" from? They magically had it ready in advance and knew that James Altgens would come rushing in the door with his undeveloped film, and, voila ?? How did they know what clothing Lovelady would be wearing that day? It's just absurd.

Beating a proverbial dead horse here, but as was pointed out by me and acknowledged by you in a prior thread, Chauncey Holt lied about being one of the tramps in Dealey Plaza. Beyond your own conjecture, there is absolutely no evidence that either he OR Bill Shelley appear in that Oswald film from New Orleans.

John, You can trot out witness testimony all you like. Witnesses are frequently confused and/or flat-out wrong, as we have seen time and time again in the Kennedy assassination. In this specific case, these witnesses certainly cannot be used to impugn the veracity of a photograph transmitted over the AP wire within 30 minutes of the shooting. It is an impossibility that the photo was altered prior to transmission, and as such, it accurately represents not only the limousine but the people on the steps of the Book Depository at that particular moment in time.

OK, then prove that it wasn't/isn't. How are we to then distinguish one supposed version of the photo from another? How do you know you aren't analyzing the "real" image? Otherwise, this is just a bunch of hand-waving and wishful thinking amateur photo analysis.

A fraud that was transmitted over the Associated Press wire within 30 minutes of the assassination?

Well said, Andrej. But are we really surprised Armstrong is stretching himself into impossible shapes here, considering the preposterous logic underpinning his "Harvey and Lee" theory?

"Jewish Nation" ?

At the risk of speaking for Jeremy, I believe the point is not that "any other impersonation/operation is nuts," but rather, that John Armstrong's "Harvey & Lee" theory most certainly is.

I am pretty sure David Lifton is on record that the H&L theory is complete nonsense...

Not to take this topic further off into a tangent, but at the 11:40 mark of this presentation, John Newman makes a very credible case for the use of "Lee Henry Oswald" in conjunction with the Mexico City episode being an innocent error on the part of John Whitten, and not part of some larger obfuscation. It's all the more reason not to believe anything Chauncy Holt said.

Chauncey Holt lied about being one of the tramps in Dealey Plaza, a claim completely undermined by the actual arrest records from 11/22/63. Why then should we believe anything he has to say about providing forged paperwork for Oswald?

You're joking, right? I hope you're really not posting such a sentence with a straight face...

I see you are back to your usual "hey, look over here!" tactics. No surprise. What do ANY of the claims you mention have to do with a long-term doppelganger theory, specifically the fatal flaws in said theory (Russian language proficiency, mastoidectomy scar) that Jeremy, RCD, Mark Stevens and others have repeatedly asked you to address?

They were afraid? According to who? Does EVERYTHING have to have a conspiratorial explanation? Why is it so hard to accept that agents would have wanted to identify EVERYONE in the building doorway in Altgens 6?