Jonathan Cohen
-
Posts
1,208 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Jonathan Cohen
-
-
1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:
Who was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald in 1960 or earlier, and why?
Just so we are clear, what specific 1960 impersonation are you referring to?
-
1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:
It's funny how the opponents of Harvey and Lee just keep spamming the forum with "they could have done it easier", pretty much admitting that all they have is their inability to believe in a long-term program with any degree of complexity.
Someone was using Lee Harvey Oswald's identity in 1960 or earlier. Who was it, and why?
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.
-
1 hour ago, John Butler said:
These folks would have you believe that the Harvey and Lee story is a minority position. When in actually, the minority view, the Warren Commission, or what I call the official story, is the minority view. And, has been for decades.
I don't know how many people believe the Harvey and Lee story is credible. That's not important. What is true is important regardless of the popular opinion. But, it explains best the various anomalies provided in the official story and in part is based from WC findings.
It absolutely does NOT "explain best" these anomalies, which is why hardly anybody takes this theory seriously.
-
3 hours ago, John Kowalski said:
Jim has made a simple request, to discuss Harvey and Lee on this forum and not elsewhere.
If you are so confident in your your beliefs, why don't you make an argument here on this forum? Are you able to do so? Can you demonstrate that you can make a rational argument based on facts on this forum or will you respond with your usual emotional responses?
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?
-
1 hour ago, John Kowalski said:
Jim:
You have won the debate. This response clearly shows that Parker's posse can't respond with facts and logical argument. If they had these they would have posted them now.
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.
-
11 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:
Calvin has linked to a pseudonymous post on a little known forum written by someone called ‘Firestarter’ who offers barely any detail to support the claim, and who seems largely unfamiliar with Scott’s career. So I think the assertion is already on shaky ground.
Precisely. Most, if not all, of Calvin's posts cite similarly dubious sources. One might even call it trolling...
-
On 6/16/2021 at 12:45 AM, Jim Hargrove said:
Mr. B wants everyone to believe this has been explained somewhere else, but he doesn’t want to explain it here. Why? Because it HAS NOT been explained elsewhere!
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
-
53 minutes ago, John Butler said:
As an example, in Chapter 3, he could have at least asked the question why the Chisms and Newmans said the president stood and waved to the crowd before the shooting. There are no examples in films or photos of this behavior and the majority of witnesses say something different.
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...
-
7 hours ago, John Butler said:
So, which parts of the Bell film are edited and which parts are credible?
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 !!
-
2 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:
Do you think it’s possible that Abraham Zapruder could have been coerced to film it? Or, have had some kind of foreknowledge of what was about to ensue? He profited greatly from it.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Steven Kossor said:
The Zfilm we have today shows the condition of JFK's head at the Bethesda autopsy, not the condition of JFK's head at Parkland Hospital. When Abe Zapruder was on camera on 11/22/63 describing the movie he shot, he uses a gesture to indicate the opening-up of the right side of JFK's head (exactly what appears on the Zfilm we have today, but not what JFK looked like at Parkland). Maybe Abe was foreseeing the future and describing what his movie would eventually look like, during that filmed TV interview. Maybe he found his way onto that pedestal and the plotters took full advantage of his high-quality camera and modern film, and had their way with it. The way the images are captured on the existing Zfilm, it looks like the camera panned left-to-right but did not also pan downward as the limo traveled down Elm Street, so the image of the limo almost went off the screen (Abe was much too skilled cameraman to have done such a poor job of framing his subject in the film that the US citizens eventually paid him $16,000,000.00 for). For these reasons and more, I believe that an "official" movie film had an intentional role in JFK's killing - to create memories of "what happened" and to suppress dissenting opinions - and that Abe's movie was a better foundation for the "official" version than any amateur could probably have delivered.
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?
-
24 minutes ago, Steven Kossor said:
My words were: The idea is that confusion, all resolved to the Zfilm as the “official record,” results in the confirmation of the lone nut solution to all mysteries, and that’s the value of the Zfilm to the plotters (and why I believe an official movie of the killing was a planned part of the operation).
Are you implying the plotters "chose" Abraham Zapruder to film the "official movie of the killing" ?
-
14 minutes ago, John Butler said:
Does this make my speculation that Lee Oswald was in Russia and Lee and Harvey were playing there usual game of "switch em" early on there. Lee was reported to be in Germany at a similar time.
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.
-
6 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:
Attention: John Butler! This is how to properly identify people in the Dealey Plaza photo record.
-
3 hours ago, John Butler said:
What I am saying is the view of the p. limo is limited to certain sides of the vehicle in certain areas. There were photographers on the streets that we don't know anything about their film. And, the question is why?
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?
-
1 hour ago, John Kowalski said:
You just did it again. Your question does not prove anything. It's clear to me that you are not getting the point I have been trying to make.
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?
-
1 hour ago, David G. Healy said:
and, cite(s) would do famously well here, otherwise one might assume you're just attacking another dead guy with years of photography experience. A dead guy that appeared in front go a House of Representatives Committee studying a whole bunch 1960's assassinations that happened before you were born...
He even owned an Advertising Agency in the Ft. Worth area of Texas, for years...
and, sat for an on-camera interview with me in 2003 in Duluth Minnesota...
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?
-
1 hour ago, Jamey Flanagan said:
To me, his analysis of the Moorman position in the Z film as in comparison to the famous Moorman headshot photo seemed pretty sound mathematically and geometrically.
His analysis was neither sound mathematically or geometrically, as Josiah Thompson demonstrated here.
-
2 hours ago, John Kowalski said:
The Oswald double operation began in the 1950s prior to Kennedy's election as president. It was not created as part of the assassination plot. Oswald was sent to the Soviet Union and then he returned. Those who planned the assassination used an existing CIA asset who had the perfect red credentials to be the patsy. It's as simple as that.
Tell the missing Lee and Marguerite doppelgangers it's as simple as that. I have a feeling they'd disagree.
-
7 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:
Jack White did a nice presentation one time of the discrepancies between the different photos depictions of the people lined up on the streets to watch the parade. Let me ask those who think all the films and pictures are 100% authentic, how do you explain one picture showing completely different people lined up on the street with the Z film supposedly at the very same instant?
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.
-
56 minutes ago, John Butler said:
I don't make this stuff up. I just look at the photos and films with a closer inspection than most. It comes from having an eye for details.
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.
-
30 minutes ago, John Butler said:
The tall tree shown in the Glen McBride Polaroid did not exist. It was put there by a graphic artist to cover up something. Perhaps shooters looking out a window on the west side.
"Put there by a graphic artist" ? Is there no end to your preposterous, baseless allegations?
-
16 hours ago, Robin Unger said:
Nix GIF
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.
-
2 hours ago, David G. Healy said:
Cute, here's is your dilemma (and lone nuts) and what you need to answer and show: please produce alleged, 11/22/63 DPlaza, in-camera film originals of JFK motorcade so comparison(s) between films can be made. Simple chore, right?
Let me get you started in this endeavor: The Nix Film *origina*l has disappeared, gone, poof... The *alleged* Z-film under tutelage and control of the Dallas, Tx., 6th Floor Mausoleum... there, your on your way... get back as soon as possible with your results...
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.
EVIDENCE FOR HARVEY AND LEE (Please debate the specifics right here. Don't just claim someone else has debunked it!)
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Jonathan Cohen
expanded first sentence.
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.