Jonathan Cohen

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

There's a big difference between February 1958 and September 1959.  One date gives two Oswald and the second gives one.  The second is a cover up change by Robert.  The temp difference between Sep. and Feb. is real as experienced by this fellow in 1969 in Texas.  OBTW, what does this make Robert?  A knowing conspirator?

It makes Robert ... someone who made a simple, honest mistake? Why is it that "Harvey & Lee" adherents can't possibly bring themselves to accept that there are perfectly innocent explanations for these inconsistencies? Furthermore, can you explain why on God's green earth the evil "Oswald Project" overlords allow Robert Oswald, who, according to you, was "in" on the plot, to not only write a tell-all book but include "obvious" mistakes in it that give away the whole game? Were they just waiting for Internet sleuths like yourself to uncover the whole charade three decades later?

5 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

The "mistakes" he lists may be the only parts he can "prove" are fake, but once any part of the film is shown to be fake, the entire film is suspect. 

To say nothing of the fact that Costella apparently believed he and Jack White were being "tracked" by sensors or cameras hidden in Dealey Plaza by the evil conspirators, these alleged "mistakes," "lopsided triangles" and "blobs" are nothing more than conjecture until someone can actually explain how the film was altered to this degree using technology available at the time, much less explain away Roland Zavada's findings that the film in evidence is in fact the in-camera original.

14 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Who Knows?

What is blatantly obvious, is, someone was up on the wall behind the pedestal before the extant Zfilm was finished being filmed.

No mention of this person by ANYBODY.

Do you believe that any of the 30 frames from the Zapruder film published in Life on Nov. 29, 1963 were altered? If so, the conspirators would have had just a handful of days to do these alterations by combining elements from this alleged second Dealey Plaza film prior to Life going to the presses?

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

Action!!!

In case you didn't see his partner up there:

Or, is that just light coming through the trees. LOL

Are you suggesting that Zapruder and Sitzman were willing conspirators in filming the motorcade as part of a larger conspiracy?

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The last way I would describe that list in as serious researchers.  To me  most of them are jokesters.

Then that’s your opinion. But I think you’re only saying that because they disagree with you on numerous aspects of the assassination. That hardly makes them “jokesters.”

33 minutes ago, John Butler said:

JC,

Show me the proof to back up this statement.  And, don't send me off to another site or person.  You make these broad statements.  Back this one up.

You needn't look any farther than right here on this forum, where Jeremy Bojczuk astutely points out:

Wilcott's notion of an 'Oswald project' specifically contradicted the 'Harvey and Lee' theory in several important respects:

• Wilcott's Oswald was one person, not two. Wilcott's Oswald did not have a doppelganger, and Wilcott's Oswald's mother did not have a doppelganger. 
• Wilcott's Oswald was an English-speaking American, born and brought up in the USA, not a native Russian-speaking eastern European refugee.
• Wilcott claimed that Oswald was recruited by the CIA while in the Marines, not several years earlier while still a child.

Those are the three central elements of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, and they are all contradicted by James Wilcott.

33 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Name this vast majority.  Can you get past a half dozen or so.  Let's me generous.  Maybe a dozen.  Name some.

With pleasure! Marina Oswald, Priscilla McMillan, Jeremy Bojczuk, Mark Stevens, David Lifton, Robert Charles-Dunne, Tracy Parnell, Pat Speer, Barry Ernest, Bernie Laverick, Josiah Thompson, Gus Russo, Greg Parker, Bart Kamp, Jefferson Morley, Gary Mack, John Newman, Tom Purvis, Mick Purdy, Jon Tidd, Paul Trejo, Thomas Graves, Duncan MacRae, Steve Roe, Vince Palamara, Alex Wilson, Dale Myers, Fred Litwin, David Von Pein, Bill Brown, Walt Brown, Lance Payette, John Mytton and Steve Barber, for starters...

1 hour ago, Pete Mellor said:

...but Mr Russo can't be bothered to translate Spanish into English from this revelatory 'Secret Assassination File'.

no entiendo!

Are you seriously complaining that Gus hasn't personally translated these 110 pages after the nearly two decades of work he's already done to make the files available in the first place?

44 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Even after all these years, why can’t we answer the simplest questions about “Lee Harvey Oswald?”

There is, of course, no such thing as "The Oswald Project," and all of the anomalies you list have been debated to death on this and other forums. You have been presented time and again with perfectly logical alternative explanations, but you just keep bringing up the same things over and over, while clinging to the most absurdly complex and illogical theory, which involves decades worth of doppelgangers. There's simply nothing more to talk about, which is clear from the fact that "Harvey and Lee" is dismissed by the vast majority of serious JFK assassination researchers.

2 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Without getting into further detail, my basic point is this: if one posits a conspiracy that “starts too late,” then yes, the result will be a number of these anomalies which don’t make sense. But if one pushes back the “start date” to an earlier time (and I'm choosing June 1962, for the sake of this discussion), then these problems basically disappear.

David, I'm willing to allow for the possibility that a plot to assassinate JFK was in the works as far back as you suggest, and even that Oswald may have been a pre-selected patsy from an early stage. There is certainly evidence that Oswald was being closely monitored by government agencies by this point. But I cannot understand how any intelligent person would make the leap that this plot includes doppelgangers for Oswald, his mother and god knows who else as part of a separate conspiracy that began when the historical Lee Harvey Oswald was just a boy.

40 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

No one is inventing anything here. The point is that you can't have it both ways. You can't say we know the location of the wound based on the witnesses, when many of the witnesses placed it in places no one actually believes, and a number of others accepted the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

 

Pat, forgive me if you spell this out on your Web site, but I'm curious: factoring out descriptions by witnesses and doctors for the moment, can you square the damage to JFK's head as seen in the Zapruder film with the extant autopsy photos and x-rays?

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

What is it with you?  Anything related to Armstrong sends you into "I Must defend civilization mode" of attack?

And I will wager that like most of John's  critics you have not even read the book.

Jim, I'm glad you asked (and yes, I've read the book, but I barely survived the experience). I applaud John Armstrong's tenacity as a researcher, and the collection of documents he has donated to Baylor is a very valuable addition to the assassination research archive. However, I believe his theory is absolutely preposterous on numerous levels, and the mountain of anomalies on which this theory rests is easily toppled by alternate explanations that don't involve a laughably complex conspiracy involving doppelgangers. It is an embarrassment to the larger JFK community, with which Armstrong refuses to engage.

What's worse, imagine for a moment someone who has newfound interest in the assassination after having watched your documentary, or the new documentary on Josiah Thompson's book. They do some Googling and eagerly arrive at this forum to get a sense of what's new with the case. Instead, they find thread after thread of nonsense about multiple Lee Harvey Oswalds, multiple Marguerite Oswalds, family members who were "in" on a decades-long plot, ludicrous claims of massive photo evidence fakery to disguise all these lookalikes running amok in Dealey Plaza, and on and on. It's an incredible disservice to all the dedicated people trying to move assassination research forward.

11 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Back in 2015, Sandy Larsen posted proof that Postal money orders required bank endorsements in 1963 on this forum:  It is a fairly lengthy proof, but he also provides shorter versions in links near the top of the page.

Proof that . . . Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963.

 

 

And his supposed "proof" was promptly shredded by other forum members in the same thread. 

3 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Larry- my impression was that "technical operations" was just their euphemism for phone taps.

Oswald was recorded during political debates in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, and there's no reason to assume these recordings weren't known of and/or made available to authorities at that time.

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The Warren Report is the biggest laughing stock among JFK researchers I'm aware of.  Will Jonathan Cohen attack the Warren Report?  Let's hear some REAL CRITICISM about the Warren Report!  No?

You can read criticism about the Warren Report on thousands of threads on this message board. THIS thread was supposed to be at the new document releases. YOU are the one who introduced your usual "Harvey and Lee" baloney into it.

20 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Although she was forced to say many things, Marina Oswald clearly was NOT "in on it." 

But Robert Oswald was? And so were all the different Marguerites? No wonder this theory is the laughing stock of the JFK assassination community. You guys can’t even agree on who and how many doppelgängers were running around Dallas in the early 1960s! Meanwhile, what does John Butler have to say about Mr. Hargrove’s strong statement above re: Marina? In another thread this week, he insisted she was a key part of the “Harvey and Lee” plot…

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Sure.  Well, I'm not so sure about John Pic from some of the things he said.  For Robert and Mama Oswald, you can't get much deeper into the conspiracy.  I don't think they liked where it ended.  I think they were patriotic Americans who believed they were doing the right thing for their country.  As far as Marina goes, her self-interest and loyalty to the Soviets have kept her quiet over the years.

IMO, the Oswald family were willing participants and believed in what they were doing.  The Paines were simply agents.  Marguerite did give up the game to get her son home claiming that Oswald worked for the CIA as a spy.  Robert gave himself away in his book when he talked about Lee being at home when he was at Atugi Naval Base in Japan.  Who knows what Marina's actual position was and still is.  

But John, this is ridiculous. Why on earth would the evil conspirators allow Robert Oswald to write a book in the first place? Or to give interviews on the subject for the rest of his life? Or for Marguerite Oswald to align herself with people like Mark Lane and then loudly proclaim her son's innocence? Or for Marina Oswald to write an unbelievably detailed book rendering the notion of "two Oswalds" complete folly? It makes absolutely no sense and is a massive logical failing of "Harvey and Lee."

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Two Oswalds.  That is a significant part of this conspiracy.  One that involves the whole Oswald family.  And, the Paines, their handlers or keepers, if you like.  

The fact that, according to "Harvey and Lee" doctrine, "this conspiracy" involves "the whole Oswald family" is precisely what makes it idiotic. Do you actually believe that all these family members and friends knew there were two Oswalds, and then proceeded to give interviews about the assassination for the rest of their lives and NEVER MENTIONED IT, ever? Those are some smart conspirators, huh? 

54 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I turned the contrast down and the brightness up.  The shadow behind the ear does not appear to be different from the shadows under the nose and chin.

This is a good shot of Harvey to show the identification traits one can use to id this Oswald.

1.  Left ear with two folds at the top rim.

2.  Earlobes

3. Comb over to hide a significant recession of his hairline on both sides of the head.

4.  Large, slender nose.

5.  Short chin.

6.  Slender to normal neck in profile.  In a direct to the front shot, Harvey appears to have a wide and stout neck.

This photo may have been retouched.  Oswald received a significant beat down at the Texas Theater and later at the Dallas Police Station.  This beating shows as bruises and scrapes in other photos of Oswald in his T shirt.

Uh huh. So, Marina Oswald, Robert Oswald, Marguerite Oswald, Ruth Paine and Michael Paine all arrive at Dallas PD headquarters expecting to see Lee, but instead they find a beaten, bruised and scraped "Harvey" sitting across the table? And NOBODY says a word? This theory is so profoundly idiotic that I cannot believe anyone actually subscribes to it at this late date.  

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

The Zapruder Film Symposium, which was organized and moderated by Dr. James H. Fetzer on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota, 9-11 May 2003, may well prove to have been among the most important conferences in the history of the study of the death of JFK.

 

These fellows will answer all of your questions on the Zapruder film.  Just watch their presentations.  

James Fetzer

John Costella

David Healey

David Mantik

Jack White

David Lifton

 

John,

Why should we take any of these people seriously when you refuse to acknowledge the work of actual photographic experts like Roland Zavada, who have confirmed that the Zapruder film in the National Archives is not a copy? At this late date, do you really expect us to go along with the thoroughly debunked hypotheses of people like Jack White, who believe that the moon landing and the 9/11 terrorist attacks were faked? Or John Costella, who believed there were "sensors" in Dealey Plaza tracking his every move? Or James Fetzer, who has been banned from multiple JFK assassination forums?

28 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Loved the clarity showing how the CIA and the FBI simultaneously took the limelight off Oswald just weeks before the assassination.

Can I believe my eyes? Is Jim Hargrove actually referring to Lee Oswald in the singular, as in, the ONE and ONLY historical Lee Oswald? I’m sure Jim and his acolytes couldn’t help but notice that the preposterous “Harvey and Lee” theory is nowhere to be found in the new documentary…

20 hours ago, John Butler said:

My thought is that Kennedy was shot in the forehead as noted by Alan Smith and this stunned him to the point he didn't react much to the back wounds.  He knew he should be smiling and waving to the crowd.  That's what he was there for, so he did.  I don't think this was involuntary.  He was still thinking, but just not rationally. 

Folks, take off your Billy Lovelady mask and call the Marguerite Oswald imposter(s) in from the kitchen, because John Butler is back with another absolute doozy: that President Kennedy was SHOT IN THE HEAD on Main Street, before the motorcade made the turn onto Elm, and NOBODY IN THE ENTIRETY OF DEALEY PLAZA NOTICED. President Kennedy's reaction to being shot in the head? Oh, he just kept smiling and waving because "he knew should," and because "that's what he was there for." John, you've left me speechless yet again.

3 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

I hope PM is Oswald. But how could the organisers of the main event , after so much clandestine work creating the legend of Oswald, allow him to wander when he is the designated trigger man? If he was pictured or remembered on the steps or the street (if he’d decided to wander further), wouldn’t all the planning and the plot to finger him have been for nothing? 

Sean, this is an excellent point and one that is further confused by the preposterous claims that there were two (or three?) Oswalds running amok in and around Dealey Plaza during the assassination.

9 minutes ago, John Butler said:

 The shadows of Mary and Jean are painted in.  Those are paint brush strokes.  Their shadows should not be there.

John is now back in "Billy Lovelady face mask" territory with this one. Painted in shadows? Really? Painted by whom? When? How? Why?

43 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Altgens 6 shows a rifle (more likely a shotgun) sticking out of the open door and erased from the photo leaving some trace of its image. 

Altgens 5 has been altered.  That alteration occurs as the vehicle moves across the cross-walk lines going north on Houston.

Neither of these photos has been altered and you have failed time and again to provide ANY explanation for how they even could have been, given how quickly after the assassination they were transmitted over the Associated Press news wire.

Finally, some light relief: two "every piece of evidence is altered" aficionados debating between themselves which piece of evidence is more altered than the other. The Dealey Plaza photo record has been proven time and again to be self-authenticating, regardless of John Butler and Denise Hazelwood's theories to the contrary.