Jonathan Cohen

Yes. Its usage in all of those scenarios was coincidental.

I'm not implying that. The point I am trying to make is that BEFORE and AFTER the assassination, she was known to embellish things and/or lie, particularly when they involved Lee (ie., her numerous misconceptions about Oswald's time in Russia being connected to some government spy work).

Yes. And then he barely had any contact with her from then until the day he died.

Tony, further to this line of discussion ... I am almost certain that Oswald, by choice, barely saw or communicated with Marguerite upon his return to Texas. So, even under the best of circumstances, she would not be in any position to comment with accuracy on what was going on in his life at that time.

What do you mean, prior to the assassination? In what capacity could that have possibly happened? A co-worker proactively going to the authorities to do ... what, exactly? I was referring to her numerous embellishments and outright lies in the 15-plus years that she lived following the murder.

That hardly means it was true, or that he even believed it himself.

My take is that Marguerite was a known li*r and embellisher, and as such anything she may have said to other people has to be taken with an enormous grain of salt. Have ANY of her tall tales ever proven to be true?

Exactly, Larry. These are two very different things.

Nonsense, as Larry has pointed out above.

There's zero hard evidence to support this, and a ton of it favoring the exact opposite conclusion.

Excellent point, and yes, they absolutely should.

Actually, nobody is saying that. What we're saying is that "torn" can clearly have more than one meaning. And in the absence of clarification, no one can definitively say whether the bill was torn in two or just simply torn but intact.

Indeed, and Jim has often praised the work of folks like Robert Charles Dunne, who has done more to destroy the idiotic "Harvey and Lee" theory than just about any other poster here.

Everything's a lie, everything's fake. Pretty convenient to just trot that out as an excuse every time someone challenges you on your claims.

Since you didn't actually answer my question, I can then only conclude that you do not see any distinction between an intact dollar bill with a tear in it and a dollar bill that is torn completely into two or more pieces.

Where to even begin? https://www.jfk-assassination.net/nagell1.htm

Are you serious? Who cares what a search engine labels them as. Are you actually trying to claim that there's no distinction between a dollar bill with a tear in it and a dollar bill that is torn completely into two or more pieces?

Haven't you ever had a torn dollar bill in your wallet that wasn't actually torn into two distinct pieces?

As with nearly every aspect of this case, there are perfectly plausible and reasonable alternative explanations for this sequence of events which do not require Ruth Paine to be a convenient CIA spy. Nagell made up plenty of stuff. I'm surprised any researcher considers him credible at this point.

I don't believe he's ever written one himself, although he has stated on this forum many times that he is "agnostic" about the validity of the theory.

One of the most unintentionally hilarious statements ever made on this forum, especially since it comes from someone who believes in evidence fakery to a preposterous level as the ludicrous "Harvey and Lee" doppelganger theory. You're the one pushing long-debunked misinformation.

Because this has turned into a pointless back and forth and it needs to stop. David Von Pein is a member in good standing of this forum, whether you like it or not. Nobody asked to hear what you "would have done" to him if you were a moderator at the time.

Great! If you're so satisfied that "many of us," including you, "know the answers to these questions," you can step out of the thread and let actual discussion flourish. And by the way, the book is called "Destiny Betrayed," not "Best Destiny" ...

Great. So you can stop bringing up the subject again and again?

So just because David Josephs espoused some theories about the nature of the Mexico City episode, we should just globally declare that it no longer bears any scrutiny or study?