Jump to content
The Education Forum

Denny Zartman

Members
  • Content Count

    388
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Denny Zartman

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,364 profile views
  1. Regarding the rifle palm print, I would suggest checking out Sylvia Meagher's book "Accessories After The Fact" pgs 120-127 and see if any of that information answers your questions. I'm not 100% convinced it was Oswald that shot Tippit, but I'll try to go along with the theoretical. To me, the Tippit shooting is very suspicious even if Oswald was the killer. It was this aspect of the case that first began to pique my interest, because the official version doesn't pass the smell test, in my opinion. While Oswald was in his rooming house getting a jacket and a handgun, a police car pulled up front and honked its horn lightly twice before driving away. Were there really two cops (or men dressed as cops) in the car? Or is it possible that it was one cop in the driver's seat and a cop's uniform hung near the window, as was the case with J.D. Tippit? Either way, I believe the occupant or occupants of the police car outside Oswald's rooming house were conspirators that were signaling Oswald. If so, that seems to me would explain why Oswald would be able to walk calmly up to Tippit's police car instead of running in the opposite way, the way one might expect an assassin to do when attempting to escape the authorities after committing the crime of the century. Could Tippit reasonably be a conspirator? If I'm correct, he was out of his jurisdiction at the time of his death. Additionally, there was a report of him making a mysterious short phone call at a record store just prior to his shooting. Tippit wasn't there to drive Oswald to a safe house or Redbird airport, like Oswald might have believed. That would have become clear to Oswald during their conversation through the car window. What ever was said or seen during that conversation, as a result Oswald might thought his life was in immediate danger. Reasonably so, in my opinion, since Officer Tippit had ignored two crucial opportunities to call for backup and apparently was drawing his gun at the time he was shot. If mere apprehension and arrest were Oswald's true fear, wouldn't he have made better getaway plans? This is a man who had the ability, according to the official story, to leave and re-enter the country at a moment's notice using nothing but public transportation. Yet he makes a clean getaway from two crimes, boarding at least two motor vehicles during that time, and for some mysterious reason he couldn't get any farther away than a movie theater. It seems to me that if Oswald did indeed shoot Tippit, it was because Tippit was intending to kill Oswald. I also believe that Oswald was meant to be shot in the Texas Theater as plan B. Heck, I believe it is possible that it was a policeman's gun that misfired in the arrest scuffle, not Oswald's. That might just be speculation on my part, though.
  2. Hi Tommy, welcome to the forum. You might want to check out Mark Lane's book "Rush To Judgement" and Chapter 5 "Why Oswald Was Wanted" for a more thorough explanation. The short version is that there was no roll call at the TSBD just after 12:30 PM, and Oswald was not the only employee missing out of those who were working on the sixth floor. The description that fit Oswald but didn't contain Oswald's name went out on the police radio at 12:45 PM. According to the Warren Report, Oswald wasn't noted missing until at least 1:00 PM, and probably not before 1:22 PM (when the rifle was discovered.) Warren Report, pg. 156 Testimony of Roy Truly, Superintendent/Director of the TSBD Oswald was not the only 6th floor employee missing. Charles Givens was also not present. Testimony of Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer. Testimony of Charles Givens
  3. It's disappointing but not that surprising. In Oliver's defense, he's a stand up comedian. Since he's been working on The Daily Show and his own show dealing with current events in a more intelligent and insightful way than most, there's now an illusion around him that he's an actual newsman or something more than he really is: a talented, charismatic comedian with a smart writing staff and clever producers. Before the Daily Show, he was just an average person subject to the same media saturation on this subject that most people have been for decades. Still, it's disappointing that someone who appears so smart and able to see through the BS as Oliver would parrot the same simple Lone Nut argument. Oliver says people believe in a conspiracy because they can't accept the fact that one lone nut changed the course of history. The funny thing to me is that it seems the opposite could also be argued. Maybe everyone who believes Oswald acted alone holds this belief because on an elemental level they can't accept that the government would/could run such a deadly operation and keep it a secret. Surely someone would have talked. Well, like @Larry Hancock 's book says, many have talked. But truly listening and understanding what they have to say involves learning about lots of not-so-well-known people and organizations, many of whom operated in secret. It also means analyzing some complex and sometimes contradictory evidence from an incomplete record. Finally, it means overcoming a lifetime of media conditioning and exposure to the same inaccuracies, mischaracterizations, and outright falsehoods that people end up repeating to each other again and again. That's an investment of time and effort that most folks aren't that interested in undertaking, unless you're like many of us on this forum who find the mystery endlessly fascinating and will gladly read a book on the subject for pleasure.
  4. And I screwed it up. I should have voted "specific knowledge." My mistake.
  5. I'm voting "generally aware" even though I believe Oswald was in contact with conspirators. He obviously didn't know everything because he didn't know the true identity of the designated fall guy, namely himself. Yet he knew enough about the plot and the people that the conspirators believed he had to be silenced. I don't think Oswald was intended to be apprehended alive in the first place. I think Norman and Joe are right in that there is also a possibility that Oswald believed he was part of a secret counter-assassination plot or something along those lines. I suspect a number of players in the conspiracy believed the same, at least initially. So, yes, I believe Oswald had some working knowledge of the planned assassination, but what role he thought he was playing is still a mystery to me.
  6. I'm following this thread and I don't agree with Mark. It seems to me that two questions should be considered: Does one believe that someone was attempting to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald at some time prior to June 3, 1960? Does one believe that someone was attempting to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald in the days and weeks prior to November 22, 1963? If the answer to number 1 is "No", then how does one explain J. Edgar Hoover's memo of June 3, 1960 where he writes: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11510#relPageId=836 If the answer to number 2 is also "No,", then how does one explain the multiple instances of Oswald possibly being impersonated in Dallas and in Mexico City just prior to the assassination, including the sighting of Oswald at the Dallas Furniture Mart where he was observed driving away? https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m2.htm If the answers to either/both 1 or 2 are "yes, I do believe Oswald was being impersonated in 1960 and/or in 1963", then in my opinion that person should lay off calling the Harvey and Lee theory nonsense. You may not personally believe that Oswald had an exact double shadowing him since childhood, but clearly there was something suspicious going on regarding his identity that deserves closer examination.
  7. Hi Greg, welcome to the forum. Since my little informal analysis has been brought up in this thread, I might as well throw in my two cents. Vince Palamara notes repeatedly in his 2015 book "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda" that many of the medical witnesses have indeed given contradictory accounts at different times. If that was not reflected in my analysis, it is a fault of mine and should not reflect upon the quality of Vince's work. My analysis was intended to attempt to briefly and as impartially as possible count the number of health professionals who had observed JFK's anterior neck wound and how they characterized that wound, not just to the Warren Commission (where they would be under the most pressure to conform to the official story), but contemporaneously as well as what they've later said in interviews to authors and reporters. I did this analysis based upon the information in Vince's 2015 book. In my list, I clearly quoted Dr. William Clark as saying that Dr. Kemp Clark told him that Kemp observed the throat wound and Kemp said that it was one of entrance. I did not imply nor intend to imply that William observed it himself, only that William characterized it as one of entrance based upon the information provided to him by Kemp. I probably I should have listed Kemp's name instead of William's in order to better conform to the intent of the analysis. Nurse Diana Bowron is quoted from Harrison Livingstone's 1993 book "Killing The Truth" pg. 718: It seems that many of the witnesses in the JFK case were pressured to conform to the official story, and it is true that many of them did equivocate when testifying to the Warren Commission. Of course the Warren Commission and Arlen Specter were under pressure to do everything they could to make the Lone Nut theory plausible and to discourage and dismiss any countering testimony. If I recall correctly, Specter had to use theoreticals and assumptions to get many of these doctors and nurses to admit to a possibility that the anterior neck wound was one of exit. To take the Warren Commission testimony of anyone and rely exclusively on that testimony as the clearest evidence of that person's true opinions and observations would be a mistake, in my opinion. That's why I think it's important to also consider the contemporaneous statements as well as the statements made to sources other than the Warren Commission. Vince Palamara's 2015 book "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda" pgs. 13-14, regarding Dr. Charles Carrico's observations: Palamara 2015 pg. 24, regarding Dr. Charles Baxter's observations: So that's it for Dr. Charles Baxter, right? He's one of those that said it could be either an entrance or an exit, correct? But wait a moment. Not so fast. It seems that Dr. Charles Baxter wasn't so unsure about the nature of the anterior neck wound when asked about it later. From Palamara 2015, also pg. 24, regarding Dr. Baxter's observations: The quote "And it was an entry wound" was, in my opinion, definitive enough for me to put Dr. Charles Baxter in the category of those who characterized the anterior neck wound as one of entrance. So it is a grand total of one medical professional who saw JFK's anterior neck wound and described it as one of exit? Yet, even that testimony to the Warren Commission seems to be called into question. Livingstone 1993, pg. 13, regarding the observations of Dr. Marion Jenkins: I have not yet been able to find a transcript if one even exists) of the Dallas forum where Jenkins and the others discussed the anterior throat wound.
  8. This is one of my pet peeves. Courts don't prove someone innocent. A verdict of "Not Guilty" means that the prosecution hasn't proven their case, not that the accused is innocent of the charge or charges.
  9. Thanks for the link, George. It's the same, superficial, misleading rehash of the Lone Nut theory I thought it might be. I keep hoping that if someone is going to write an article about the film in this day and age that they would at least take the time to try and bring something fresh.
  10. I'd like to read it, but I don't really want to sign up.
  11. Regarding Minsk: Logic tells me that the Soviets would easily see Oswald and any other suddenly dissaffected American military types defecting to Russia as obvious spies. The Soviets give Oswald a shell job or two, and then keep him under constant surveillance and away from places spies shouldn't be. The Soviets even manage to get an informant to marry him. But whoever sent Oswald to Russia in the first place must have known that the Soviets would work under the assumption that Oswald was an obvious spy and therefore would be unlikely to get many opportunities to do some serious spy work. This assumption that Oswald was considered to be a spy would have been confirmed to the US by the fact Oswald got a good-paying skilled factory job very quickly (a job I suspect he never actually worked more than a day or two), and was treated to a comparatively lavish lifestyle. So, did Oswald get any meaningful "spy activities" done during his time in the USSR? In other words, did whoever sent Oswald to Russia ultimately feel that they accomplished their goal?
  12. I don't really have any doubt on this anymore. I always try to remain agnostic on any particular point of fact no matter how large or small. I don't want to even unconsciously support an incorrect assertion simply because I have already taken a public position that I feel the need to defend. I want to be 100% open to new arguments and new evidence as much as possible. This case deserves it. But it is clear to me there is something to Harvey & Lee. I believe now that there was indeed some sort of organized government Oswald Project that likely dated back several years and quite possibly a decade or more. I do not discount that possibility as unlikely or far-fetched. This Oswald Project was probably intended to create a better spy with an interchangeable identity. I do not claim to understand all, or even most, of the Harvey & Lee theory. My decision to believe that it is likely comes from long-time observations of these debates over Harvey & Lee on this forum, and me trying my best to apply logic and common sense. It's impossible for me to believe that the use of "Harvey Lee Oswald" on a government document post-assassination would be a simple clerical error, yet I think it was meant to be explained away as a simple error should any questions ever arise. Only months after the assassination, the name Lee Harvey Oswald was emblazoned on everyone's minds. No one is going to make that error on an official document. If they did, someone would have caught it and re-typed it. It appears to me that, more likely than not, "Lee Harvey Oswald" was a name used by two or more people, while "Harvey Lee Oswald" was possibly intended to refer to one specific individual.
  13. I don't believe so. If one aspect of a theory is disproved, it doesn't automatically invalidate all the other aspects. When you say far-fetched, I assume you are talking specifically about the concept of a long term doppelganger project, and not about the idea that someone else was using Oswald's identity prior to the assassination, correct? We don't believe that one or more people were using Oswald's identity by accident or coincidence, do we? That right there seems to me to prove there was some sort of secret organized project that involved Oswald's identity was going on behind the scenes. If one acknowledges that an individual or individuals were actively using Oswald's identity in the days/weeks/months/years prior to the assassination, is it really that far-fetched to think that a longer-term program intended to create a better spy might have existed? You think the military wouldn't try such a thing? Aren't we really just arguing about the degree?
  14. I'm still reading and digesting the Kittrell manuscript. Thank you to everyone posting on this thread. It's very interesting. My initial observations: Kittrell's identification of Larry Crafard as the impostor seems to be an important piece of information I'll be curious to learn more about. I also need to learn more about Thomas Eli Davis, reportedly a CIA associate that allegedly admitted to using Oswald's name. The motorcycle jacket is a fascinating detail that I still don't fully understand. Common sense seems to indicate that it was most likely an identifiable wardrobe item shared by two people to make it easier for one to pass as the other. Does anyone know if there any photos of Oswald wearing such a jacket, and/or was a jacket similar to this description ever found among his belongings? Interesting how this case now features two mysterious Oswald jackets. Kittrell also makes an interesting observation that an American passing through Minsk probably wouldn't immediately be offered a job. If the information in the earlier posts of this thread is true and Oswald was the only American staying in Minsk as opposed to passing through as a tourist, that would also be noteworthy. I personally interpreted the "little bits of metal" explanation to indicate that Oswald held the factory job and was paid for it, but didn't actually ever work there. Either the Soviets gave him a cover job that paid him and didn't require him to work, or he just dropped into the country and got a job working with "little bits of metal." If he actually had this job, why then could/would he not be able to better explain the specific work to the employment counselor in order to help him find similar employment? As if Kittrell is going to call up her contacts looking for jobs that involve "little bits of metal" because she has a job-seeker who is experienced in "little bits of metal." In short, either scenario sounds shady to me. I have great difficulty in believing that the pregnant woman observed at Kittrell's first meeting with the man in the motorcycle jacket was a Marina impostor, despite her clothing apparently not matching what Marina usually wore. I also don't understand why that Oswald would feel the need for the violent demonstration of hitting the table. Trying to implicate himself by displaying a hair-trigger temper doesn't make sense. It seems to me that two impostors would be more likely than "real" Oswald with a fake Marina.
  15. Congratulations! I very much look forward to it, Vince. As I've probably mentioned before, "JFK From Parkland To Bethesda" is the most dog-eared and underlined book in my library. I don't think any other book mentions the unidentified bleeding VIP treated at Parkland that day.
×
×
  • Create New...