Jonathan Cohen

Then why did nearly every Parkland doctor confirm the veracity of the autopsy photographs, which show no blowout wound low on the back of the head?

Chris, forgive me if I've missed this in your prior posts, but what's your take on the identity of the Prayer Man figure, and what if anything can be done amongst the research community to help come to a consensus on this point?

What eyewitness "errors" are you referring to regarding Ruth Paine?

I didn't say you said anything about Armstrong's theory. You asked what people believe regarding Oswald's language proficiency. I linked you to two previous threads here, one of which tries to tie said proficiency to "Harvey and Lee." Happy to ignore you too!

This has been covered at length on the forum previously, without any need for John Armstrong's idiotic doppelganger theory, which is, as usual, destroyed in this specific thread. It is clear that Lee and Marina communicated exclusively in Russian.

Out of curiosity, why does anybody ascribe some conspiratorial significance to the notion that Ruth disliked Lee? As you point out, he was an abusive husband at worst and an ungrateful houseguest at best. Is Ruth not entitled to her opinion on this matter, whether we or anybody else agree with it?

Not a single one of these points negates the possibility that the real Lee Oswald was actually in Mexico City at the time.

Indeed he does make a good argument. Leslie Sharp should be arriving any minute to claim Savastano is wrong and only "Coup in Dallas" tells the Souetre story accurately ...

Show me where I ever said any such thing? Because I never did. There are perfectly logical alternative explanations to your nonsense above, including that any plot to specifically set up Oswald would not have been undertaken after and until he'd (quite innocently) taken the job at the TSBD. The plot needn't have required his specific presence along the motorcade route. It just required some patsy's presence. It could have been anyone. And with that in mind, your jumbled logic requiring Ruth Paine and Linnie Randle to be CIA agents falls apart.

Nobody "got" Oswald anywhere other than himself, by going to the job interview.

The faulty logic at play here is truly breathtaking.

Give me a break with your resurfacing of this nonsense. It does absolutely nothing to further study of the case.

A wonderful idea, Greg, but I think we all know not to hold our breath as far as anything involving Albarelli is concerned ..

Per Wiki: The episodes identified three men as the assassins of Kennedy: deceased drug trafficker Lucien Sarti and two living men (Roger Bocagnani and Sauveur Pironti). All three were later revealed to have strong alibis: Sarti was undergoing medical treatment in France, another was in prison at the time, and the third had been in the French Navy. One of the two living men threatened to sue, and Central Television's own subsequent investigation into the allegations revealed they were "total nonsense". Turner justified his failure to interview one of the accused on the grounds that the individual was "too dangerous". Turner was censured by the British Parliament. The Independent Broadcasting Authority forced Central Television to produce a third episode dedicated to the false allegations, which aired on November 16, 1988, which was later referred to as a "studio crucifixion" of Turner and his inaccuracies.

Sigh. An “orchestrated operation” ? By whom, exactly? You are aware that the claims about French involvement first widely aired in “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” were so wildly incorrect (and libelous) that the episode was retracted, right ?

I'm not going to let you derail this thread. But since you keep making stupid accusations about me, I will point out once again that I don't have a "side" in this case, other than to weed out the "Harvey and Lee"-style, complete and utter nonsense beloved by so many members of this forum.

I never said that. I am merely giving a signal boost to a presentation that is rich with original research and analysis -- the kind of thing we could use a lot more of around here.

Yawn.

"The high bar" ? That "high bar" apparently means not allowing the research community access to the "datebook" to determine the alleged "authenticity" for themselves, while simultaneously attacking anyone who expresses (perfectly reasonable) doubts. Until that happens, proceeding as if the Lafitte story is true is utter folly.

In case people have not seen it yet, it can be viewed here. This is one of the most thorough, interesting and well-researched presentations I have seen on an assassination-related topic in many years. Regardless of where you stand on the identity of the Prayer Man figure, it's refreshing to see new work presented by people who are serious about resolving key issues in the case without simply claiming every piece of evidence is fake or altered.

And does it not worry you that Kennedy is an anti-vaccine, anti-science nutjob perpetuating preposterous conspiracy theories at every turn?

Why should he, or anyone else, be given a free pass to disseminate blatant falsehoods and reintroduce nonsense such as the story of Tosh Plumlee?

So are you claiming that if such an examination had occurred, Ruth’s “lies” would have crumbled for all to see? I don’t get why you’re fixated on this as it pertains specifically to the Paines.

And your problem with this is... what, exactly?

Oh really? Earlier in this same thread, you said, "Well of course Ruth Paine was a CIA asset. Either she was or Linnie Mae Randle was." The use of the phrase "of course" hardly indicates that you believe something to be "hypothetical."