Jonathan Cohen

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.

You said: "Because to WC apologists, all CTers promote far-fetched beliefs." Before we go further, let's be clear: Is that actually your belief? Or rather, were you just mocking Jeremy's comment about moderators?

And then I linked you to another thread here. Is that enough for you? You've got to be joking if you think you can somehow extrapolate that to accurately interpret his movements inside the theater. That's not how real research is conducted. And you truly do not have a clue what you're talking about in that regard.

What "assertion" ? You asked about two Oswalds in the theater and I told you it was mentioned in Douglass' book. What else is it that you'd like me to do? Total and complete speculation. Neither you nor anyone other than Oswald himself can say for sure what he "would be cognizant" of.

Texas Theater employee Butch Burroughs' credibility on the issue of Oswald's movements/arrest is also debated here:

Who cares if he was able to establish it or not? You certainly cannot establish it one way or the other either. The only "evidence" I'm aware of ever being presented that Hunt was there was the mistaken identification of him as one of the tramps. Are you aware of any other actual evidence to support his presence in Dallas that day?

Detail of what? It's in his book which I don't have it handy, so if you're curious, you can check it for yourself. It has also been discussed in many prior forum threads, which can be searched. I have no idea, and neither can anyone else other than Oswald himself. We have no choice but to speculate, which leads nowhere.

That was discussed in Jim Douglass' book but there are ample other explanations for the alleged incident therein that do not involve a secret, decades-long government-funded doppelganger program.

No, it actually was not real in the slightest, which is why it is the laughingstock of the JFK research community. There is absolutely ZERO hard evidence supporting the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald had a Hungarian-born, Russian-speaking doppelganger. Any "sightings" or alleged impersonations of Oswald fall into a completely different category than that nonsense.

For additional background on the actual three Dealey Plaza tramps, click here.

So what? That in and of itself is not in any way proof that he was physically in Dallas that day. And by the way, he WON the suit originally.

Aren't you humorous! Hunt was not one of the tramps, as has been known for more than 30 years thanks to the LaFontaines discovering their original arrest records.

There's nothing to correct because this incident clearly has nothing to do with an imaginary doppelganger program involving Lee Oswald.

I don't believe a word of what Fletcher Prouty says about this, for what should be obvious reasons frequently discussed on this forum. I know all about the "evidence" Hunt was in Dallas and it does not stand up to scrutiny.

There is ZERO hard evidence proving Hunt and Lansdale were there. Amateur photo analysis doesn't count.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that the presence of Bush and Nixon in Dallas was anything but coincidental.

I called the theory idiotic. Not you, or any other human being. Please do show me how using an adjective to describe a theory is "against forum rules."