Jonathan Cohen

That's right. It is absolutely not proof of anything, at all. Yet, "Harvey and Lee" wrongly trumpets it as legitimate "evidence" in support of the idiotic theory.

Has John Newman made such a statement more recently than 1994? I'd love to see it, if so. Robert Groden includes fake autopsy photos in his books and passes them off as real. Jack White claimed the Moon landings were faked and that no planes hit the World Trade Center. Rob Reiner aired blatant falsehoods in his podcast. These are the people you really want to use to prop up the most idiotic Kennedy assassination theory of all time? Even David Lifton, of "the body was altered" fame, rejected it. Jefferson Morley rejects it. Walt Brown rejects it. Barry Ernest rejects it. Josiah Thompson rejects it. Bart Kamp and Greg Parker reject it. On balance, an overwhelming majority of the most serious and respected researchers in this case rightfully think "Harvey and Lee" is a joke.

Do you actually believe you need "permission" from the "moderators" to ignore a forum member? Are you not aware that you can accomplish this yourself in a matter of seconds?

Roland Zavada's report for the ARRB destroys the notion of this level of massive fakery in the Zapruder film.

A preposterous, sweeping generality which pretends the "Harvey and Lee" theory is not widely derided by the most serious and respected researchers in the case -- which it most certainly is.

It does absolutely nothing of the kind. Per Tracy Parnell: Armstrong uses a phone call from an unidentified woman to Mrs. Jack Tippit of Westport, Connecticut as the basis for several otherwise uncorroborated claims. The caller said she knew Oswald's father and uncle and they were Hungarian communists. Armstrong states, "If this information is correct, one of the two Oswald's lived in New York in his youth. This could explain Oswald's interest in communism (from his father and uncle), which began as a teenager and continued throughout his life." Armstrong adds, "She gave two names-Louis Weinstock and Emile Kardos." Armstrong makes another slip when he says that the unidentified caller gave the name Louis Weinstock. The caller gave only the last name Weinstock and Armstrong has filled in the blank with a first name helpful to his theory. Louis Weinstock was, of course, the General Manager of "The Worker", the left-wing publication that Oswald read. Weinstock had also corresponded with Oswald on at least one occasion to thank him for his offer to make posters for the publication. To be fair, the caller did say "Weinstock, the editor of Woman's World". If the caller said "The Worker" and the Mr. And Mrs. Tippit heard it as "Woman's World" then Armstrong is justified in adding "Louis" to "Weinstock". But Armstrong leaves the reader with the impression that the caller said "Louis Weinstock" which isn't the case. The FBI document adds, "The woman then began speaking indistinctly, disjointedly and nervously." The woman's nervousness could have resulted from the fact that she was making a crank call. Another possibility is that if the caller was referring to Louis Weinstock the call was an effort to embarrass him by associating him with Oswald.

Which is precisely the reason I started this thread. I don't think it's right that the forum membership at large has zero say in who is chosen as a moderator, and how.

What are you talking about, and on what basis would you assume I "take their claims" seriously? I don't believe a word Tosh Plumlee says about a south knoll shooter. And I don't believe anything in the datebook until it is authenticated and made widely available for study by the research community.

I don't explain anything, because that would require starting from the assumption that the datebook is real. As we know, it has not been independently verified as such or provided for examination by the wider research community. Until it has, there's literally zero point debating "what ifs" about its purported contents.

So what? When has that ever stopped the dozens of other "lone nuts" who carried out political assassinations?

CompletelyUnverifiedDateBook.com.

So? The same Robert Groden who tried to pass off a fake autopsy photo as real in his most recent book? The same Robert Groden who was humiliated on the witness stand in the O.J. Simpson case for his lack of expertise? I also cannot believe you would dare to imply Sylvia Meagher believed the idiotic "Harvey and Lee" theory, when in fact, her "Two Oswalds" section reaches no such conclusion whatsoever. The rest of Jim's post is the exact same nonsense he has spammed this forum with for many years -- as if one random Amazon book review can be equated to the opinions of those who have studies this case for decades (and handily rejected the premise of "Harvey and Lee"). In fact, here's a thread from more than two years ago where he did the same thing. And here's Jeremy's astute takedown of the entire ridiculous enterprise.

So what? This is hardly evidence of a connection to what happened in Dealey Plaza.

I have already proven it, numerous times. You are perfectly capable of searching the forum archives, where you will find, for example, a poll of members which revealed far more non believers in the theory than those who agree with it.

"One U.S. official said the government still has no evidence of space aliens visiting planet Earth." In other words, this is all a bunch of hot air until actual scientific proof, should it exist, can be studied.

I will just say again, for the umpeenth time, that there are basically ZERO credible JFK assassination researchers who take "Harvey and Lee" seriously, and just as few who believe in massive fakery and deception as it pertains to the Dealey Plaza photo record. That should tell Sandy Larsen something, but clearly it doesn't ...

First of all, you cannot possibly be serious by claiming that we have not offered substantial evidence against "Harvey and Lee" ? There are dozens upon dozens of threads here and extensive research papers published elsewhere that prove what you say is completely bogus. On a larger level, how is your post not construed as outright harassment of other forum members by you? Guess we'll just have to reciprocate by calling out people like yourself by name for constantly pushing the most idiotic, long-debunked nonsense to be found in this case.

Don't worry, I won't. The entire theory is an embarrassment to critical thinking, which is why it is considered a laughingstock by serious researchers of this case.

Well, there you have it, folks. “Harvey and Lee” - a theory that there were two distinct Lee Harvey Oswalds (and Marguerite Oswald’s) who were secret government spies for a decade - is not far-fetched, according to Sandy Larsen.

I never asked to be one, or for your opinion on me, but I’m glad you’re not one either.

You rest your case because nobody believes such a ridiculous theory?

I don't consider it far-fetched as a broader concept. It has certainly happened before. However, it is HUGELY far-fetched as it applies to this case, and the evidence for it does not stand up to actual scrutiny. The film and photo record in Dealey Plaza is a self-authenticating whole.

You're wrong. People don't reject JFK conspiracy theories because they're inherently far-fetched. They reject them because the evidence in support of them either doesn't stand up to actual scrutiny or can be countered by any number of perfectly logical alternative explanations. There's nothing "far-fetched" about the broader concept of photo alteration. What's far-fetched is people refusing to consider other solutions while also hand-waving away the major technical and logistical hurdles any conspirators would have had to clear. You have a very different definition of "evidence" than many people who have been studying this case for generations, which is borne out by the fact that the research community almost unanimously rejects the idiotic "Harvey and Lee" theory.

So the answer is, yes, this process is a closed loop for anyone who isn't "invited" to become "admin staff" and that forum membership at large has no say whatsoever in who said admin staff is or how they are chosen.

And my question is, who chooses the admin staff, and how? Does the wider forum membership have any say in this process?