Jonathan Cohen

56 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Altgens 6 is a fraud. 

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

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Well, John Armstrong's interpretation of the immediate aftermath of the shooting is a very sad story. Rather, it is a mad story. It has the sole purpose of making Armstrong's escape plan working. To make his nonsensical escape plan working, Lovelady (!) needed to be  conspirator, Shelley too, the electric power needed to be shut off right before arrival of the motorcade, both men needed to make sure to switch on the power again so that the passenger lift can be used to transport two shooters from the sixth floor to the 1st floor, to this end the wooden floor needed to be dismantled and restored again so that nobody sees any manipulation with the floor, and of course, book boxes needed to be placed over the place where the wooden floor was disturbed, and off they go using a ladder to enter the lift through the roof of the said lift parked on the 5th floor.

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?

7 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

My guess is that the explanation relates to the sensitivies of the Jewish Nation, as opposed to Intelligence Agency suppression, but who knows?

"Jewish Nation" ?

8 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

You appear to believe Oswald was "impersonated, ad hoc,  in Mexico City and perhaps Dallas," but suggesting any other impersonation/operation is nuts? How's that follow, exactly?

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.

10 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

There's only one David Lipton around here and he's not in this thread, he'd be a great reviewer of H&L, but none of us will live that long...

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

On 3/1/2021 at 12:47 PM, John Butler said:

They were Lee Harvey Oswald, Lee Henry Oswald, Leon Osbourne, and Alex Hiddell.

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.

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chauncey Holt said he took 4 indentities to New Orleans for Oswald

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?

41 minutes ago, Jim Harwood said:

And the B'nai B'rith was long ago implicated in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln...

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

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Do you suppose we could agree on any of the following?

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?

On 9/4/2020 at 1:36 PM, Andrew Prutsok said:

They were afraid it was Oswald and the photo was evidence that he was exactly where he claimed to be during the shooting.

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?

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You do know, don't you, that FBI agent Hosty's interrogation notes reveal that Oswald said he was outside watching the presidential parade?

That is what Hosty's notes appear to reflect Oswald having said. It still doesn't make any sense why Oswald HIMSELF did not repeat this information any of the umpteen times he was in earshot of reporters and journalists in the Dallas jail after his arrest. This information would have been disseminated around the world in a matter of moments and would have instantly changed the narrative about the suspect and the shooting. Further, why didn't he tell his family members this when they came to visit him?

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

And how do you know Prayer Man is not Lee Oswald?

 

Believe me, Andrej.. I would LOVE for it to be him. It would clear up SO MUCH confusion (and BTW, I admire the work you are doing with these images). But it defies logic that A) not one single person said they saw Oswald watching the motorcade from that spot and B) that he did not scream from the heavens at every possible opportunity that he was, in fact, watching the motorcade from that spot and as such could not have shot JFK.

33 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Here's an image of a Russian language newspaper printed in San Francisco that is probably similar to the one Oswald reportedly read in the Marine corps while stationed in California.  Can you imagine teaching yourself to read a newspaper like this--in your spare time?

"Probably similar" ? If you can't be more definitive than that, why bother using it as an example here? But just for the sake of argument, why is it so hard to believe that Oswald used something like this to help teach himself the language? Why is it any different than just opening a book in another language and attempting to learn individual words, sentences, etc?

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I mean, I can make out Ozzie's hairline, his right ear, his neck, and unbuttoned shirt. And it looks like he either has a short sleeved shirt or long sleeves with them rolled up. Could I really make those things out on a 25 x 25 pixel image?

No, actually, you can't make those things out on a 25 X 25 pixel image. For one, you can't make ANYTHING out on an image of that size. For another, you certainly can't "make out Ozzie's hairline, his right ear, his neck and unbuttoned shirt," because... it's not him.

18 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

So how do we fit Mysterious Marge into all this: did she continue to be paid post-assassination? How much did she know about the project? Did she really believe that Harvey Oswald was her child? 

Were the two Marguerite Oswalds also twins separated at birth by the Office of Naval Intelligence?  

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Harvey Oswald's autopsy report mentions he has suicide scars on his left wrist and forearm.  This is in accord with the story of Harvey in Russia cutting his wrist.

For crying out loud. The actual human being whose autopsy report you are referencing is the one and only historical Lee Harvey Oswald.

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

To improve upon his Russian in preparation for his upcoming intel mission to Russia.

Right - the upcoming intel mission is so secret that he just sits in his barracks openly reading Russian materials for all to see? Another masterstroke by the long-term doppelganger plotters!

35 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

We can now work out when Harvey learned Russian. It would have to be in Kindergarten.

And it would have to be in Fantasy Land™.

15 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Same person in all photos.

17 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

well, of course! We should expect nothing else from the "LHO did it all by his lonesome" crowd. That script was written well before you showed here, btw.

You can expect whatever you like. But your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. I have never once said I believe "LHO did it all by his lonesome." In fact, I don't believe that at all. Indeed, a person can -- and many people on this forum do -- believe in Oswald's innocence of the assassination without subscribing to the absolutely idiotic theory espoused in H&L.

1 hour ago, Dawn Meredith said:

So RCD.  You have made it quite clear that you do not support the H&L position. I have a question.  The photos of "Harvey" and "Lee" do not look at all alike, to me. To what do you attribute this?  If not two different people, then what?

I know this question was directed to RCD, but regarding photos that do not look alike, what if it's actually not attributable to... anything, other than the simple fact that one's appearance changes often, sometimes dramatically, over the course of a lifetime? To my eyes, there is one and only one person depicted in these photos: the one and only historical Lee Harvey Oswald.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Let’s continue to look at some other evidence for the two Oswalds.

Dude, you LITERALLY post the same thing every day. You wrote nearly the identical sentence in this thread barely 24 hours ago. Should I have t-shirts made?

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

In plain English, can you explain how, when, and where Oswald developed his proficiency in the Russian language?
 

You guys sure like to start the same thread over and over again, don't ya? Here are plenty of perfectly logical, alternative explanations for how Oswald developed his Russian skills, in a thread Sandy created and in which you posted repeatedly, back in ... 2017.

Now then. In plain English, can you address how H&L adherents rationalize the fact that the body in Oswald's grave had undergone a mastoidectomy operation?

34 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

Jim Hargrove and I are presenting evidence.
 

Uh huh. So when challenged on the cornerstone of the entire H&L theory -- the fact that the body in Oswald's grave had undergone a mastoidectomy operation -- Jim Hargrove instead rattles off a dozen-plus statements that have nothing to do with the specific question at hand? That is evidence of.. what exactly?

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Bojczuk nearly every day for years has used the mastoidectomy to declare his case closed.  To do so, of course, he must declare that only the mastoidectomy is relevant to the case of two Oswalds, that there are no other explanations for the mastoidectomy, and that all the other evidence is irrelevant, a “distraction.”  

Let’s consider just a handful of other examples of the evidence for two Oswalds.

No. Let's not. How about, for once, actually addressing the mountain of evidence Jeremy has posted in this thread which completely destroys the entire H&L theory, instead of posting the same list of totally irrelevant talking points OVER and OVER again? Even simply saying, "I am not sure how to reconcile the mastoidectomy evidence" would at least be intellectually honest and grist for actual debate and discussion.