Jonathan Cohen

7 minutes ago, Donald Willis said:

Or (harmless explanation) is the sound of a shot from above just muffled by that tree?

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 ...

20 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

Most of the players were dead 20 years ago. Dead people can't be libeled.

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

4 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

As long as nobody complains... I'd simply let it be... 

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.

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Even John Newman doesn't believe Oswald visited Kostikov. He knows (as we all do, except for you) that the "Oswald" who called the Russian Embassy was an imposter.

In this article, John Newman writes:

...CIA intercepts showed that someone impersonated Oswald in phone calls made to the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate and linked Oswald to a known KGB assassin — Valery Kostikov — whom the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year.

 

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.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

If you buy this show, then  you also think that Oswald killed Kennedy because that is what they concluded. They also said that Duran met Oswald.

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.

32 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Second, the photo below is proof that Kennedy's head was altered somewhere between Parkland Hospital and the hospital in Bethesda. Humes' pre-autopsy note of "surgery to the head" is further proof of the alteration.

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.

52 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Had I been admin at the time, I would have NOT allowed DVP back on the site without his destroying his copy of the material first.

Thank goodness you weren't !

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Much of what Turner revealed about the JFKA and the major players involved in his TMWKK series was never known before and would have never been known except for it's creation.

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.

On 12/7/2023 at 8:23 PM, Alan Ford said:

I believe Mr. Oswald was slated to carry out a 'pro-Castro' stunt of some description out front (just off the steps) just after the firing of shots.

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

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But admittedly I am stumped by the early call to snatch the body in order to modify the head damage.

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.

16 hours ago, Greg Burnham said:

It's hard to believe that this episode was first aired 20 years ago as of last month! Indeed, in my interview, I even referenced “if they’re still covering it up in 20 years…” and now, here we are.

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.

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

He obviously thought the question was, were you in the building that day. Or maybe during the motorcade.

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

1 hour ago, Gene Kelly said:

You have Ruth and Michael Paine producing daming evidence on Oswald (i.e., the rifle, Walker letter, Minox camera, Mexico City).

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?

18 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

What is in need of disruption Jonathan?

Don't tell me that ridiculous Kirkian charge that somehow the overthrow of Goulart was a JFK/LBJ operation?

When in fact, both Kai Bird and A. J. Langguth said it was not.

If JFK had been part of the club, he would not have gotten killed.  Its that simple.  LBJ was part of the club, e.g. David Rockefeller's, and this is why he went along with the Kennedy cover up and had David in his office to discuss McCloy being the point man on the coup.

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.

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What? You are arguing with me about whether I said something or not?

I repeat, I've never said a word about the things you said I did in your first post.

Since you insist on arguing with me, I demand that you retract what you said. Either put up or shut up.

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?

3 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I've actually been told to politically  back off here asking serious questions of you on these matters.

I'm left to think it's too disrupting to the forum status quo.

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

11 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Yes, just more nothing Jean!

If it's not innuendo, it's phony claims of charges that would never hold up.

Agreed!

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Nah, never mind all that. 

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

25 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Read the documents, then go find the facts, Jonathan.

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

28 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Notice the subtle derision:  “affair” “hazy” “despondent”. 

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?

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I just explained it!

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.

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

How do you explain the impossible shadow?

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.

42 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 The only way I can think of for the impossible shadow to be present is that it was painted* by the coverup artists in order to conceal something.

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.

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've never claimed that the postal money order cannot have been processed given that there are no bank stamps on it.

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