Jonathan Cohen

5 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

I think I understand you now. Marguerite in 1962 used the word "subversive" in relation to Oswald, but that was an embellishment.

Moving to post assassination, Patterson used the word "subversive" in relation to Oswald, and a reporter used the word "subversive" when asking Curry about Oswald's background.

Even though Marguerite used the same word, that was used a year later, that was purely coincidental. 

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

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

Meaning who labelled Marguerite as a person, that was known to "li* and embellish", that knew her?

I'm referring to a statement she made in 1962. You are implying that what she said at that time was fabricated. So I'm interested in anything that indicates that she was of the type you described before the assassination.

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).

38 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Mr. RANKIN. You did move to be with your mother-in-law, lived with her for a time?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, about 3 weeks. 

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.

37 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

That is something I'm not aware of. Which people came forward, prior to the assassination, exposed Marguerite as a person that you've described above?

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.

6 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

So, it sounds like J. Edgar Hoover told Nixon, fairly promptly on November 22nd, that the assassin "was someone connected to Castro."

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

10 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

What's your take on the people, that Marguerite Oswald worked for in September 1962, divulging to a reporter, that Marguerite told them, at the time, that Lee was involved in "anti-subversive" activities?

So this statement by Marguerite to her employers was over a year before the assassination.

September 1962 would be one month after the FBI sat with Lee in their car for 2 hours outside Mercedes.

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?

5 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

There is reason to think he was prepared to provide information to the FBI when it suited him, as it did in New Orleans, and that there was an FBI file on him there - as a source. Not as informant, which is a very different thing.

Exactly, Larry. These are two very different things.

15 hours ago, Marcus Fuller said:

It appears that there is very strong evidence that the US has at least 9 non-human craft in its possession. 

Nonsense, as Larry has pointed out above.

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Maybe Oswald was an FBI informant. Seems likely to me 

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

39 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Shouldn't researchers consider this Burroughs young man and his Oswald theater recollection with at least some reservation considering his admitted army rejection limitations in the mental capacity department?

Excellent point, and yes, they absolutely should.

23 minutes ago, Bill Fite said:

Hilarious - there seem to be some who would say that this bill is not torn:

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.

46 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Thanks Jonathan, I've never seen one either. Seems strange to me why he never attempted to write a review when he has H&L authors on his K&K website. 

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.

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

There were four CIA assets telling these stories.  But they were all lies. Just like Oswald meeting with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov was a lie. In that case to implicate the Russians.

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.

18 minutes ago, Bill Fite said:

LOL -- I've shown the common usage of the word torn wrt dollar bills.

I believe it's what the posters of the images labels them as.  

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.

17 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Like what?

Where to even begin?

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/nagell1.htm

Just now, Bill Fite said:

You're question is irrelevant to the discussion.

Are those images from DuckDuckGo labeled torn or not?

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?

12 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

Friday, September 20, 1963, was also the day that Ruth Paine arrived at 4905 (or 4907) Magazine after corresponding with Marina about having her come live with Ruth and children until and through the birth of their next child in mid-October. The dates work perfectly; Ruth arrives just in time to remove Marina and June from Oswald's care and sight. Ruth and children stay the weekend and corroborate the fact that Marina's "husband" was there all weekend. Finally, on Sept 22nd, Oswald helps load Ruth's car and on the morning of Sept 23 says goodbye to Marina and June.

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.

12 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

September 20th is a most interesting day … on September 20, Richard Nagell sent a registered letter from El Paso, Texas to Hoover  and informed him that President Kennedy would be assassinated  in a conspiracy that involved Lee Harvey Oswald. After mailing the letter, which included Oswald's description, aliases, and current address, Nagell walked into the State National Bank and fired two shots into the ceiling.

You just can't make this stuff up ... 

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.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I cannot allow misinformation to flourish.

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.

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I'm not the one bringing it up over and over. It is others who claim I'm wrong who keep bringing it up.

Why did you just bring it up?

 

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.

42 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

(BTW, many of us know the answers to these questions. Everybody should read Best Destiny by Jim DiEugenio. Or Peter Dale Scott's Phase One, Phase Two article on Mary Ferrell Foundation.)

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" ...

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Indeed. Copyright infringement happens all the time in this day and age. But most people don't care because they don't lose anything (like money) over most infringements.

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

32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Look, we have been through all this when David Josephs was here.

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?