Jump to content
The Education Forum

Denny Zartman

Members
  • Content Count

    243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Denny Zartman

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

977 profile views
  1. It doesn't make sense because, among other reasons, Oswald didn't have a motive and Oswald didn't have an escape plan.
  2. David really wanted to make sure that the new guy Chris didn't get any ideas in his head about Oswald being not guilty. It's very important to this man, whose job is verifying the truth in the news department of WFAA, in 2019, to make sure all the news anchors believe Oswald is guilty.
  3. Interesting. I'm looking forward to checking it out.
  4. Gee whiz, it's been proven that Oswald was in the sniper's nest merrily shooting away. Why oh why would anyone have to threaten Frazier about anything at all? Keep silent about what? If everything points conclusively to Oswald's guilt, there should be nothing to keep silent about, right?
  5. I know it's probably an actual oddity rather than anything significant, but when I read it, my first thought was "Wow. No way in the world that's real." I was positive that it had to be some joke by a Wikipedia editor, yet it seems to be a fact. I'm sure much better minds than mine have noticed this long ago. I'm just struck by, out of all of the names in the country, it just happened to be that particular one. I don't think of Oswald as being a common last name, but maybe I'm wrong on that. I try to always be skeptical of anything in this case that relies on sheer coincidence for an explanation. I'm not making any theory about it (I don't think), just noting how unlikely and strange it is.
  6. I think it's a significant find, and I also thank you for bringing it to our attention. It's an important piece of the puzzle.
  7. So anti-JFK Hunt or his people decided after the assassination to have a meeting with the lone assassin's widow in order to mitigate potential criticism from pro-JFK folks? That doesn't seem to make sense. Seems to me if you don't want to bring attention to your previous anti-JFK positions, you don't go around making contact with the killer's widow. And how exactly would this criticism-mitigating pr plan work if the meeting is kept secret?
  8. Why in the world would Hunt want to meet with Marina? I'd also like to know more about this alleged meeting. Steve is right. If there was a meeting, the Hunt note should probably be reevaluated.
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Harrelson And Boom goes the Mind. Probably of no material significance, but seriously, what are the chances of a coincidence that weird?
  10. That's quite true. I've often actively avoided taking a stance on many particular details because I don't want to consciously or unconsciously ever feel obligated to defend an untrue fact just because I've argued in favor for it in the past. I'd rather understand the truth than win or lose arguments. But, me remaining agnostic on so many important details makes me think of myself as wishy-washy.
  11. Did Marina socialize with anyone during her time in Dallas?
  12. I understand and share your frustration. I wish I had more books on this subject and the time I needed to read them all. And, of course, I also wish I had the intelligence to put it all together. It's often daunting. It seems that one could spend a lifetime studying the medical evidence alone. One person can look at a fact and draw conclusion X, while another person can look at that same fact and draw conclusion Y, while yet another person can look at a fact, declare it false, and draw conclusion Z. It can be maddening trying to sort it all out and determine the conclusion that is likely closest to the truth. I do think the rigorous examination of the fine details is worth it, even though I personally can't contribute much. I believe that over time some of these details are being understood and we begin to have a slightly clearer view of part of the outlines. Sometimes I have to take a break. I hate to get caught up in arguments and spend endless time repeatedly debating some issues that I probably don't really need to debate anymore in order to further my understanding. That time could be used to learn more. So, I should probably get off the forum now and do some more reading for a bit!
  13. Excellent post, Robert. I'm giving it a lot of thought. Thanks.
  14. Wow. I didn't think the information in this thread could get worse for our LN friends, but certainly seems to have happened. By the LN's own logic, this statement by "Officer E" shows the timeline to be: Officer E enters the building on the first floor, Officer E confronts Oswald, Truly clears Oswald, Truly shows Officer E upstairs apparently after trying and failing to get someone to send the elevator down. According to this statement by "Officer E" Oswald wasn't on the sixth floor, on his way down from the sixth floor, or even on the second floor. Oswald was on the first floor.
×
×
  • Create New...