Jonathan Cohen

Thankfully, you can't penalize anybody anymore! It's a beautiful thing (in my OPINION).

Why are threads like this permitted to exist? How does it not construe stalking and harassment of forum member Pat Speer?

What does one thing have to do with the other? Yes, Life and Prof. Thompson were given the runaround. It doesn't change the fact that he examined the Zapruder film at great length and concluded then, as he does now, that it is authentic.

It's pretty rich that Keven Hofeling is utilizing Josiah Thompson and "Six Seconds in Dallas" to support his claims on this thread, considering that Prof. Thompson is one of the most, if not THE most, vocal critics of the "every film and photograph and photo in Dealey Plaza was massively altered" nonsense.

"She was dirty" ? Did you ever meet Mary? I did. Did you ever work with her? I did. Do you have a shred of a clue about her contributions to the JFK research community?

Allen, I can't go as far as to say it had an impact on public opinion, but the Zapruder film was screened in 1968 during the Clay Shaw trial at the behest of Jim Garrison, who naturally believed it proved a conspiracy. Unfortunately, the copy sent from Washington for the trial was heavily bootlegged (and, in fact, I believe it was sold to other researchers via mail by David Lifton), resulting in poorly degraded copies circulating for many years.

James, forgive me if this information has been shared or is publicly available, but by what means were/are moderators chosen, and is there a time limit for their tenure? Do forum members have any say in this process? Thank you for taking decisive action.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Isn't it against forum rules to question the motivations of another member? You have zero evidence or proof of your statement, so I suggest you retract and delete it.

Greg Parker's late, great forum (which thankfully still exists in read-only form), Duncan MacRae's forum (which authoritatively dispels a lot of the nonsense peddled around here), Reddit discussions, Tony Krone's forum, etc.

James, Thank goodness you are now up to speed on what's really been going on here and have opened a direct line of communication to address these important issues. In my OPINION, Sandy Larsen has flagrantly, repeatedly abused his position as a moderator to suspend and punish members with whose opinions he disagrees, while constantly moving the goalposts for the "rules" of what he alone considers acceptable decorum. For context, I have been researching this case for more than 30 years, have written multiple articles for JFK publications, have spoken and given presentations at several JFK symposiums around the world and have befriended/worked alongside some of the most respected figures in the field. I've also been a member and regular contributor here since 2009 and was never subject to "disciplinary" action by an admin until August of 2023, when Larsen suspended me for the first of 13 (!?) times since then. I am only returning here to post now so as to underline what is in my OPINION a dire need to remove Larsen from his forum moderating responsibilities and to decry the abusive treatment at his hands of members such as Pat Speer, Greg Doudna and Jean Paul. This forum once thrived with original research. Today, in my OPINION, it is a barren wasteland of the same tired, long-debunked nonsense rehashed over and over and over again. A change in forum moderation would go a long way towards encouraging serious researchers in this case to contribute here and foster productive debate. In my OPINION, the forum will never reach its potential with Larsen in charge and, in fact, his presence is actively driving people away to other places of discussion. Thank you for making this forum possible.

Irrelevant. It is still just one of many assassination film and photo records, and they all form a self-authenticating whole. You cannot alter one without giving away the whole game. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the Zapruder film was altered or not. Roger, this is nonsense. First of all, why have shooters firing from the front in the first place if you're trying to frame an assassin allegedly firing from the rear? They have been addressed directly, repeatedly, for decades by the top researchers in this case, the majority of whom reject this fanciful mass alteration theorizing. Given available technology, there is no possible way the Zapruder film could have been altered to the extent some people believe.

I believe this is just more pointless "what if," evidence-free insinuations about the Paines.

I trust the the logical, well-reasoned analysis of, you know, an actual doctor such as Gary much more than a civilian who has been pushing outlandish speculation about massive evidence fakery and body alteration for 25 years, such as Horne.

And once again Jim Hargrove is re-posting the same thing year after year, thread after thread, while refusing to acknowledge the mountain of evidence completely discrediting Wilcott's claims (which Tracy has so helpfully summarized below. There was no such thing as the "Oswald Project." https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html

I've said it before, but most people just wave it away. How can you massively alter one of the assassination films without knowing if other films and photos of the same scene would surface and immediately contradict the fakery?

Matt, it would seem the only person who could answer this question is Wilkinson, since we have no idea what, if any, processing she and her colleagues did on the images. Also, I know the more zealous alterationists here dismiss anything Farid says, but his explanation for the back of the head shadow satisfies me.

Right but do we know from which version of the film it was drawn? Or from where on the web it was sourced?

Matt, what's the source of that image?

Sandy, NOTHING is statistically impossible. Weird things happen in life. Coincidences happen all the time, no matter how unlikely they may seem. Were they impossible too?

This is absurd. You cannot apply "mathematical facts" to determine whether specific historical events actually happened or not.

Thanks for posting this, Pat. I was honored to get to know Gary in the '90s and will always respect his opinions on these matters more than any message board theorist.

Not in evidence now, no. But how could conspirators be sure one wouldn't surface at some point? I'm not mocking anything. I'm trying to understand the logic of (poorly?) editing only one of the films without knowing if other films/photos would surface and render the original alteration exposed as fake for all to see. The people who have allegedly proven the Zapruder film to be a forgery have been working on an explanation for more than a decade, and their claims have not been subjected to peer review. I'll be curious to see what they come up with.

If "plotters" painted a "black patch" onto Kennedy's head in the Zapruder film, how could they be confident that other films and photos taken in the Plaza that day wouldn't immediately expose their obvious forgery? How could they afford to take that risk? Further, how can any "logarithmic" analysis have validity unless it is applied to the actual original film (or a first generation copy)? Otherwise, we're in Tom Wilson territory ...

I don't find it bizarre in the least that three strange men found in the middle of the crime scene were taken into custody, nor do I find it bizarre that they were held for several days while the Dallas Police had their hands full with much more important matters.

While you might find the tramps arrest "bizarre," thanks to the research of Mary and Ray LaFontaine, we know definitively that the three tramps in the photographs were, in fact, actual tramps - and not CIA agents or anything of the sort.