John Cotter

Presumably you accept that it doesn't matter whether the grassy knoll activity was related to one or more shots being fired from there or a diversion. Either way, it's proof of a conspiracy.

Seeing as the Pope has suggested that Ukraine should sue for peace and that the Russian invasion was not unprovoked, do you also wonder how much Putin pays the Pope to be a fascist stooge?

That's so true. How did they expect people not to get sick of the monotonous non-stop Trump bashing?

Deleted.

Well said.

Another reason why the EU and its members should have thought twice before slavishly giving their unconditional support to the US's proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

Amen to all of that.

Amen to that.

You're grasping at straws in trying to defend the indefensible.

60 years today, and the murderous regime is still in situ and unaccountable.

You don't seem to have read this extract carefully enough, Michael. What JFK is saying here is that there will be no reduction of US "efforts to train, equip, and assist" the South Vietnamese military. This is clearly not the same as saying there will be no reduction of US combat forces in Vietnam.

The consternation expressed by some ROKCers over the damage allegedly caused to the JFKA “research community” by Alan Ford’s heretical exposition is laughable. If the MSM were bothered to search for material which they could use to discredit the aforementioned community, they need look no further than the mudslinging and personal attacks constantly emanating from ROKC, which unfortunately has largely overshadowed the constructive contribution of ROKC to the JFKA debate. The fact that the JFKA research community appears more riven by infighting than Monty Python’s People’s Front of Judea is due in no small measure to ROKC’s flawed zero-sum approach in JFKA research matters.

Despite the desperate well-poisoning (for the want of a rational alternative) in your respect by self-appointed archons of the JFKA cannibalistic “research community”, I can’t help being impressed by the clarity of your reasoning combined with your inimitable (by the aforementioned community’s standards at least) ability to illustrate your reasoning with very effective pictorial representations.

Ipse dixit.

Greg Parker has replied to this at ROKC. Contrary to what he says, I know what he means by “more than a fuzzy picture” and I agree with it. The problem is that while ROKCers say they’re not 100% certain Prayer Man is Oswald, some of them behave as if they are, as evidenced by the vehemence and illogicality with which they attack any hypothesis, such as Alan Ford’s, that a fuzzy figure in the TSBD doorway other than Prayer Man might be Oswald. GP says I’ll be celebrating if he fails in his mission to have the JFKA case reopened. This is a quite perverse claim to make for someone who talks a lot about the importance of evidence, since I never suggested anything of the kind. I wouldn’t have emailed the FBI repeatedly this year about how the testimony of railroad workers recorded by Mark Lane constituted irrefutable proof of conspiracy if I didn’t want the case reopened. GP seems to have not noticed my mentioning this in this forum. Everything isn’t a zero-sum game.

There are other people here besides you, Andrej.

Meanwhile I see that Alex Wilson has weighed in with his trademark appeal to ridicule “logic” for the amusement of the peanut gallery. It’s a pity he spoils the fun by the manner in which he mangles some people’s names, which is really beyond the pale of decency.

Meanwhile over at ROKC, I see that Greg Parker is fulminating like mad against Alan Ford and me over the sanctity of how what even his own crowd have acknowledged is a “fuzzy picture” should be interpreted. He doesn’t seem to understand the logic of the post by me which he quoted.

Now you're strawmanning my argument, since you've left out the Alan Ford post about the two-headed Lovelady which you were purportedly rebutting. Please desist from cluttering the thread with irrelevant nonsense.

Another Jonathan Cohen disruptive special. Instead of posting a substantive argument, he quotes a non-substantive argument by someone else.

I wasn't changing the subject, Sandy. The two posts I was referring to, Alan's and yours, relate to the double-headed Lovelady.

If that's the case, why have you strawmanned Alan Ford's latest painstaking elaboration of the double-head effect on Billy Lovelady?

Yes, but the fundamental problem remains: adopting a dogmatic stance one way or another on the basis of just a fuzzy picture is untenable.

Since you accept that they're all fuzzy pictures, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to be so adamant about what any of them appears to represent in detail.

Howdy, Mr Ford. I’m intrigued by your exposition. I haven’t been so intrigued by anything here since the original Prayer Man thread led by Sean Murphy 10 years ago. I don’t see your line of argument as threatening to the Prayer Man thesis as others do, since the main thrust of that thesis is that Oswald was out in the TSBD doorway (as subsequently effectively proved by the Hosty note discovered by Bart Kamp in Malcolm Blunt’s papers) rather than up on the sixth or second floor. Whether Oswald was actually Prayer Man or another “fuzzy” figure in the TSBD doorway is of secondary importance. I don’t understand why people are so hostile to the idea that Oswald could be a fuzzy figure other than the one they insist he is. Such hostility seems to contradict the “more than a fuzzy picture” Prayer Man thesis, as above explained. Anyway, keep her lit. I’m looking forward to more of your instalments.