Jonathan Cohen

We'll never know, as Dealey Plaza is a natural echo chamber and people claimed to have heard shots from multiple different directions. However, there's no way to deny shots were fired from behind, unless you can explain away rear entry wounds to both JFK and Connally's backs ...

So the History Channel retracted the episode and apologized for it for.... what reason, precisely?

Indeed. Instead, we have to deal with Sandy Larsen, for no apparent reason, trying to reopen an issue that was dealt with years ago. Move on.

You are wrong, as Ben Cole has pointed out. You have missed the distinction between Oswald being impersonated on the phone and him being physically present at the Soviet embassy, where he met Kostikov.

These things are not mutually exclusive. There's zero reason why Oswald could not have been in Mexico City while also being not guilty of the assassination.

Sibert to the HSCA in 1978: "When the body was first observed on the autopsy table, it was thought by the doctors that surgery had possibly been performed in the head area and such was reflected in my notes made at the time. However, this was determined not to be correct following detailed inspection and when the piece of bone found in the limousine was brought to the autopsy room during the latter stages of the autopsy." Secondly, that photo is in no way "proof" of surgical alteration. Once again, you consistently present things as fact that are absolutely not fact. It's nothing more than your theory, and one not supported by the actual evidence or the majority of serious researchers.

Thank goodness you weren't !

Much of what he revealed? Hrm.. such as the Badgeman nonsense, the unverified and highly dubious testimony of Gordon Arnold and Ed Hoffman, the libelous claims about Johnson's involvement, the wildly incorrect pronouncements about three Europeans having been involved in the shooting and, worst of all, giving Judyth Baker a platform to spew falsehoods? This is hardly worthy of praise.

Is that why he deviated from his routine and showed up unannounced and a day early at Ruth Paine's house on Nov. 21?

Why do you consistently present things as fact that are absolutely not fact? It's your THEORY that the purpose of "snatching" the body was to "modify the head damage." There is absolutely ZERO evidence to support this.

You mean the episode that was so inaccurate and libelous that the History Channel retracted it and pulled it from circulation? "The History Channel recognizes that 'The Guilty Men' failed to offer viewers context and perspective, and fell short of the high standards that the network sets for itself. The History Channel apologized to its viewers and to Mrs. Johnson and her family for airing the show."

Thank you for posting this, Bill. Very informative.

This is "obvious" only to you, who likes to make sweeping conclusions based on nothing more than your own personal opinions.

What do you mean "producing" ? All of those items BELONGED to Oswald, whom the Paines generously offered to live in their home. What did you expect them to do while the police were searching every nook and cranny of the place? Throw them in the trash? Burn them?

Jim, I have no idea what you're talking about and as such was certainly not implying anything about that vis-a-vis "disruption." The point I intended to make is that, in my opinion, there is far too much discussion here about idiotic, long-debunked theories. I am hoping many of the regular posters at Greg Parker's forum, where many aspects of the case are actively researched anew, will join here once Greg winds things down.

Your wild speculation in the "Brian Bacchus / Ruth Paine" thread includes: "She kept secrets for the CIA because that is what CIA employees do. She kept secrets for the government coverup because she was told that there was evidence that the assassination was an international plot, and the government was doing whatever the could to prevent a war from occurring because of that evidence." Is that not tantamount to saying she lied to investigators when testifying about those very matters?

Please don't back off! The status quo here is in dire need of disruption.

Agreed!

That's right. Never mind all that, because it's not the subject of this thread.

I have read them. And I think your interpretations of them are complete nonsense.

So you're claiming those adjectives can't possibly be an accurate use of the English language in this case, and that they were only included to make her and other assassination plotters look bad?

You explained nothing. You made a complete guess about "painting" and rephotographing frames. That's not good enough, and really only proves that you have zero actual evidence to support your outlandish claims.

There's nothing impossible about it -- you just think it is. You have the burden of proof to explain how it was done. You can't just make a claim of this type and then wave away any actual explanation for how it happened.

I wish you were joking, but I know you aren't. Please explain to all of us here how a conspirator "painted" over the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository? If they would go to those lengths, why not just destroy the entire film? Your insistence on massive fakery of the evidence defies all logic.

So once again, the implication is that all the evidence regarding Oswald's rifle purchase was falsified. Is that what you are claiming?