Jonathan Cohen

15 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

An anonymous telephone tip can hardly be considered proof of anything.

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. 

18 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

What a broken record.

Here is the list I’ve compiled so far of 15 researchers who have publicly endorsed a long-term two-Oswald analysis:

John Armstrong, Rob Reiner, James Norwood, Sandy Larsen, John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, Joseph McBride, Dick Russell, Jack White, Pat Shannan, George Schwimmer, David Mantik, David Josephs,  Robert Groden & me.

Of course, Jonathan will tell us that he knows more than all the above researchers.

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.

37 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Moderators, it might be nice if you all could consider, with your kind permission, that some of us could possibly be allowed to put @Pat Speer on ignore. May I ask that it at least be considered? If it can't be granted, I understand. While I am glad that there are forum members here expending considerable & commendable effort to fact-check him, and I appreciate the amount of hard facts they bring into these threads to correct his disinformation, I think some of us being permitted to ignore Pat might offer some help in this situation, since any other resolution seems unlikely at this point.

I'd like to say I'm not making this request lightly or casually.

Thanks very much for your attention.

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?

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

The real problem, and the real test, would be to recreate the Zapruder film so that it included (1) the impossibly fast movements that we see some people perform in the existing film, (2) the streaking anomalies that we see in the existing film, (3) the odd black dot over the back of JFK's head that we see in the film, (4) the split-second 0.37-g slowing in Z295-304 that Dr. Alvarez detected in the current film, (5) the strange absence of any visible reaction by the limo's occupants to this split-second 0.37-g slowing, etc., etc.

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

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Because to WC apologists, all CTers promote far-fetched beliefs.

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.

On 1/25/2024 at 7:25 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

This story by itself isn't very good evidence of anything. But when taken into consideration along with the other, great evidence, it fills an empty spot and makes a lot of sense of the whole thing.

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.

6 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Sandy Larsen is deeply invested in, and convinced of his views of the EF-JFKA, and has stated he is a "left winger." 

So, it may be he moderates accordingly. 

So it goes. 

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.

21 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Have you challenged the list of shooters named by Dick Russell in Episode 10, two of whom appear on the list based solely on verbal testimony from decades ago?  Does that testimony trump a written document? Are Col. Bishop, Tosh Plumlee, Robert Blakely credible sources?

I simply don't understand why you would take their claims any more or less seriously than a written record maintained by Pierre Lafitte. Has anyone challenged the source of those interview tapes? Who conducted the interviews, who edited them? (For the record, we chose to omit Bishop and Plumlee as corroborating sources for reasons I suspect some in the forum will understand.) 

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.

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Hypothetically, how do you explain that Lafitte knew that a Willoughby squad was involved in Dealey, or that the strategist, Otto Skorzeny who Willoughby had known in a military capacity since the early 1950s, directed that the sniper positions should be turned?

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.

21 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Lone Nut Oswald was, if successful, about to literally change the world, and - successful or unsuccessful - was going to irrevocably change his life forever and could even get him the electric chair.

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

CompletelyUnverifiedDateBook.com.

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Our own Joseph McBride has often said that John Armstrong convinced him there were two Oswalds. 

So?

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

David Mantik, David Josephs, Robert Groden, James Norwood, among many others, have held Harvey and Lee in the highest regard.  If memory serves, Mr. Mantik once said it was his favorite book on the subject.  There's a whole section in Groden's "The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald" entitled "Too Many Oswalds."  In her renowned book "Accessories After the Fact" Sylvia Meagher had pages and pages under the heading "Two Oswalds."

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.

2 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

The Skorzeny-Ehrhardt approved guerilla warfare manual also states that the rifle commandos need to get jobs that employ them in and around the kill zone, in advance of an assassination plot, so they can best plan how to attack their target and calm suspicion from locals (who may become worried if they see unfamiliar faces in their town). 

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

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Prove it.

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 ...

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I am talking about forum members who shame theories and the people who believe  them, only because they themselves find the theories to be farfetched.

I am NOT talking about those people who present substantial evidence rebutting a so-called farfetched theory. But I AM talking about those 1) who shame a theory off-the-cuff, or 2) who explain why they find the theory to be farfetched, but offer no substantial evidence against it, or 3) who claim the theory has been rebutted when in fact it hasn't.

Here are some offenders I can think of:

@Jonathan Cohen

@Jeremy Bojczuk

@Robert Charles-Dunne

@Michael Walton

 

I know of people who won't post on certain topics because of the shaming they know they will get in response. This is the reason that shamers should be ashamed of themselves.

 

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.

53 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

PLEASE DO NOT CLICK THE LINK BELOW!!

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.

39 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Therefore, what I and most others believe is not far fetched at all. What you believe is.

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.

39 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Am I glad Jonathan is not a moderator.

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

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I rest my case again.

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

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This is from a guy who believes that all the witnesses (most of them) were wrong about the location of the gaping head wound. According to him, that they all got it wrong is a "perfectly logical alternative explanation." The reason he says that, of course, is because he considers alteration of photographic evidence to be far-fetched.

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.

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I prefer to go by the evidence rather than by what people might consider to be far fetched. LNers don't believe in a conspiracy and a coverup because -- to them -- they are far fetched concepts. Pat Speer doesn't believe there was a gaping wound  on the back of Kennedy's head, and goes so far as to believe in mass hallucination among witnesses, because -- to him -- photographic alteration is a far fetched concept.

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.

49 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Forum members have made fun of me because I believe that LHO was groomed to be a Russian-speaking spy beginning at age 13. That may sound far fetched to some, but the evidence for it is extensive.

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.

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Current members of the admin staff invite another forum member, as necessary, to become a junior member. For example, Ron Bulman replaced Kathy Beckett when she resigned.

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.

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

All three of us in the admin staff are moderators.

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