Jump to content
The Education Forum

Denny Zartman

Members
  • Content Count

    334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Denny Zartman

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,210 profile views
  1. Great news, Jim! I remember you mentioning something about a big film project a while back, and it's wonderful to hear it's been finished and picked up for distribution. I look forward to watching it. Congratulations and thanks for all your hard work.
  2. Just horrible. It happens again. Black people aren't safe from the cops even when inside their own homes. All of the incidents described in this thread are terrible tragedies that could have been prevented. Black lives matter, but you wouldn't know it from reading the headlines.
  3. It's damning, even without the other arguments that could be made against CE 399. I'm continually surprised by people who dismiss the broken chain of evidence as irrelevant. If CE 399 does not match the bullet discovered in Parkland, that alone confirms either a conspiracy or a mishandling of evidence so grave that no element in the investigation can be fully trusted. It appears to me that the whole case against Oswald is built almost entirely upon mistakes, errors, wild coincidences, and more mistakes.
  4. I don't understand your question, Rich. What could the guilty party possibly gain by confessing and ending the cover up? The reason there was a cover up was because they wanted to get away with it. Why would you expect them to give themselves up now?
  5. I'm glad Bart bumped this thread, it's made for interesting reading. By coincidence, I picked up the first edition of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" just last week. I had read it many years ago but hadn't added to my library yet. I ordered the second edition right away and should be getting that in a few days.
  6. Again, I'm not seriously advancing this as a theory. I've thought about this for months now but never brought it up here because ultimately I agree that it is probably unlikely and would be a waste of time going down a side avenue that in all likelihood tell us little or nothing about how the assassination occurred and who was behind it. The only reason I bring it up here is because it seems to me to be as plausible as any "Barney Miller" connection. If we accept the school records showing two Oswalds attending two schools in 1953, shouldn't we ask if one of those two kids had another name and was using Oswald an alias, or were there indeed two kids both being raised under the name Lee Harvey Oswald? On another thread there was mention of a witness who even claimed Marguerite looked like a different person (sorry I don't have a cite for that.) So, would that make two different children in two different states both named Lee Oswald, both being raised by two different mothers named Marguerite? Surely this is not by chance. Why, then, would you assume that military psychologists would be immune from the desire to experiment with separated twins, ect. unlike their civilian counterparts? Especially if the psychologists could provide a solid funding rationale by stating that they're working on creating a more advanced type of spy? The point I'm trying to make here is not that psychological twin studies link directly to the "Oswald Project", but to point out a possible parallel in that the study presented in "Three Identical Strangers" was deliberate, secret, long-term, and highly organized, much like the "Oswald Project" would have had to have been if we assume that the "Oswald Project" dated back to 1953 at the very least.
  7. I know psychological tests on twins are an entirely different animal, but crazed lone presidential assassin and supporting actor on a popular sitcom are also entirely different animals as well. I am also aware that sometimes the military uses technology and techniques before they become used in the civilian world. In the Oswald's we have essentially a military family, a father in the service that produced three sons that also went in the service. To be clear, this is not a theory I am advancing. I was just curious to see if it had ever been discussed or considered here, even if only to dismiss it.
  8. Just curious, has the documentary "Three Identical Strangers" ever been discussed here?
  9. I have not been an active proponent of this theory, but appears to me that there is more evidence supporting Harvey and Lee than evidence that contradicts it. The school records are certainly puzzling and difficult to dismiss as an error. I had not heard Laura Kittrell's story before, and I found it compelling, thanks @Jim Hargrove The Hoover memo and the reports of Oswald driving are also strong indicators that at the very least someone was using his identity.
  10. No one says Marcello wasn't powerful, but was he powerful enough to get into the autopsy room at Bethesda? To me, logic suggests that it is similar a one-way street. Going one direction, the flow is fairly smooth and largely without incident. Going in the other direction, someone would face numerous difficulties because of the inherent design. If the CIA goes to the Mafia for help in committing an illegal activity and it is successful, it is a win for the CIA since they achieved their objective without getting their hands dirty. If it is unsuccessful, the Mafia bears the blame and shoulders the responsibility and the CIA has plausible deniability for the entire affair. Conversely, if the Mafia were planning a crime such as killing someone, especially someone outside the underworld, and more especially a high-ranking US government official, I have great difficulty imagining that their first step would be to alert the authorities and ask for their assistance. Or is the argument that the CIA got wind of the Mafia's plan against JFK and sort of "piggybacked" their way to Dealey Plaza? Even in that event, there had to be some government official that made the decision to let the Mafia plot continue and through inaction and security reduction, get JFK killed. I think that theory has been advanced somewhere before. It doesn't seem plausible to me based upon other facts, but I could be wrong.
  11. Take my name and my words off your website, David. You do not have my permission to use them.
  12. This is a privately owned forum. No one has a right to post here except for those who own this forum. No one is saying that ideas cannot be challenged HERE. But taking content from this forum written by other people and posting it on another, separate website without their permission is simply wrong. It's against the terms of service of this forum, and even if it wasn't, it is still WRONG. And editing the content stolen from this forum and posting it on another privately owned website without permission is also wrong. Here, people can read both sides and both sides have an equal opportunity to respond, and that is FAIR. On another website, that cannot be done, and that is UNFAIR. I welcome the scrutiny HERE. I welcome the challenges on facts HERE. I welcome the debate HERE. But I will not stand for my words and my name to be taken and used on another website without my permission. I am not creating content for any JFK website other than this one. Stealing my words and my name and posting it on another website without my permission or my knowledge is utterly and completely wrong. If Von Pein wants content for his website, he can create it himself. He does not have my permission to use my name and the content I have created without my permission. This is not a debate. I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG TO PEOPLE WHO CLEARLY SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
×
×
  • Create New...