Jonathan Cohen Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 28 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said: 1 hour 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. 28 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said: 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. I rest my case. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 25 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said: 1 hour 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. 25 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said: ... the research community almost unanimously rejects the idiotic "Harvey and Lee" theory. I rest my case again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I rest my case again. You rest your case because nobody believes such a ridiculous theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 10 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said: You rest your case because nobody believes such a ridiculous theory? Didn't you read my first post on this. My case was that different people find different things to be far fetched. In response you claimed the Harvey & Lee theory to be far fetched. You made my point, so I rested my case. Capiche? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Am I glad Jonathan is not a moderator. I am fine with Mark, Ron and Sandy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 20 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said: The film and photo record in Dealey Plaza is a self-authenticating whole. Your belief in that forces you to also believe that nearly every witness to the gaping head wound mass-hallucinated it being where it wasn't. Now THAT is far-fetched. In contrast, most of us believe what the witnesses said, and that it was the photographic evidence that was altered. There is nothing far-fetched about that. Therefore, what I and most others believe is not far fetched at all. What you believe is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 3 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Am I glad Jonathan is not a moderator. I am fine with Mark, Ron and Sandy. Thanks Jim. Thanks also to @Douglas Caddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: Therefore, what I and most others believe is not far fetched at all. What you believe is. A theory which has multiple gunmen firing at JFK from different directions while attempting to frame a lone "patsy" in the TSBD (and therefore necessitating the need for a massive amount of photo alteration) is NOT a "far-fetched" theory in your opinion, Sandy? I beg to differ (and vehemently so). Edited January 12 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Fuller Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 I've been on here for a very short amount of time but so far haven't had any issues with the moderating team or anyone else really. The people who have spoken to me are usually friendly and polite and if they give me a 'tone' they get one back. Although I don't agree with David he's probably been the most polite LN (no offence) I've spoken to so far which is refreshing. I lurked for a good few months before I joined and in that time it was very clear to me who the argumentative members were. Seemingly not interested in furthering the discussion but criticising the comments of those involved at every available opportunity. In fact I don't think I've seen a constructive comment from Jonathan as yet. My only suggestion while I'm thinking of it would be maybe to consider having a 'Beginner' type section where people like me could ask questions that I'm sure you've all heard 1000 times without having them disrupt the flow of conversation. Either way, keep up the good work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 (edited) 22 hours ago, Ron Bulman said: Kathy has retired, for reasons unbeknownst to me. I hope she is well, she helped me get back on the site when my laptop died and I had lost my password. I was asked by Mark and Sandy to become an administrator, as a result. I felt unqualified regarding my technical expertise, which I still do. Though I consider it an honor to become so given the origin from John Simkin, James Gordon and more. You sir, seem a bit provocative in your nature, argumentative, a good reason to resign from having to deal with such. But, a reason not to as well. Four complaints in four days by you, about others. Reason to wonder about motives? He's basically a polluter,antagonizer & disrupter. Edited January 13 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Massicotte Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 I strongly feel that Sandy Larsen intentionally deleted my response to his post on Kevin Hofeling's "Why Pat Speer...." thread currently on the front page. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he "accidentally" deleted his own post, but I cannot see how my own post could have also been "accidentally" deleted. Sandy should know that there are many issues on which him and I most likely agree both politically and in regards to the JFK assassination. So this is not politcal or regarding matter of opinion. Anyone may go back and read this exchange between myself and Sandy, and I have saved screenshots of it for posterity if need be. I cannot prove my accusation but I hold it very strongly. I will no longer post on this forum where I feel at risk of having my speech deleted. I will not post here again, but since Jonathan raised this issue, I will raise my voice here now so that if anyone else in the future has a similar experience to mine, they will know they are not alone. Best wishes to all, and to this forum which I regret to not post at any more but still read adamantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now