Denny Zartman

Definitely. From previous discussions I've read here and elsewhere, it seems clear that researchers at the time felt burned by the story and have since dismissed it as old news disproven long ago. I won't really argue with that. I also feel that the language used in the cables isn't what I imagine it would be if it were authentic. She initially denied working for Jack Ruby, and only recanted after the picture of them together was published in Life Magazine. I think if she were really looking for a payday, she would have been capitalizing on her Ruby connection long before, and not going out of her way to deny it. But there's no doubt that the fake diary she produced irretrievably damaged the entire Roscoe White story in the opinions of JFK researchers. I don't think I'm aware of Hemming's story. I'll have to learn more. The story got a lot of derision at the time of course, and the fake diary pretty much put it all away for good in the eyes of many researchers. But Gary Cartwright, the author of the first big article on Roscoe White "I Am Mandarin", said he didn't believe Ricky was capable of perpetrating a fraud like this.

All right, here's my observation on my previous post regarding "The Fabulous Mr. Harvey Lee": There's nothing in the "green book" scrapbook that explicitly identifies the blonde person in the green book picture as Harvey Lee Goodwin. It's a detail that would only reveal itself with detective work. Is that really something a forger would add?

Pg 189 of "Admitted Assassin" is a reproduction of pg 9 of the "green book", and pg 191 has four pictures, described below, highlighted in bold. Here's the text from "Admitted Assassin" starting pg 190 and ending pg 192: - Page 9: At the top of the page are these notations: [Illegible] 1968 [Illegible] [Illegible] 1 2 [Illegible] Below these notations are two news clipped photos. The top photo is of an unidentified masculine looking blonde or gray-headed woman. This person bears a strong resemblance to female impersonator Harvey W. Goodwin. When on stage, Goodwin was always introduced as " the Incredible Mr Harvey Lee " (Note: Goodwin often performed at Club My O My a popular New Orleans tourist attraction.) There are four pencil strokes across the face. The reason for Goodwin's presence in the green book is unknown; he is not one of the "28 people [who] died from witness program." Goodwin was 79 years old when he died in 1992 - 21 years after Roscoe was killed. The authors can only speculate as to why this photo is included in Roscoe White's perplexing scrapbook. Could Roscoe be alluding to his knowledge that there were two Oswald's involved in the assassination? John Armstrong in his extraordinarily researched book Harvey and Lee makes an exceptionally strong case for there having been to Oswald's who played active roles in the events of November 22nd 1963. One used the name Lee Harvey Oswald while the other was known as Harvey Lee Oswald. (Clockwise from top left) masculine looking woman from scrapbook - female impersonator "The Fabulous Mr Harvey Lee" - Harvey Lee Goodwin - 1960s era Club My O My program Therefore could this inclusion of female impersonator Mr Harvey Lee be an admission of Roscoe's association with both men? If so it appears that Roscoe intended to expose the "two Oswald" charade that was part of the assassination operation. Armstrong believes that it was Harvey Lee Oswald not Lee Harvey Oswald who was employed at the Texas School book depository at the time of the assassination. Not surprisingly the assassination records review board discovered that at one time there existed an FBI file numbered 105-2137 captioned "Harvey Lee Oswald" that file is now MISSING! The bottom photo on this page shows two as yet unidentified men in suits sitting at what appears to be a desk or table. They may be Warren Commission staff members who came to Dallas tasked with deposing various witnesses. Each man has a pencil stroke across his face. A hand scribbled notation is below the photo. Cover-up starts now This is an obvious reference by Roscoe inferring that the Warren commission's responsibility was to ensure the "lone assassin," "lone avenger" scenario remained intact. - https://ibb.co/c2jQL3V https://ibb.co/NF4nw9w

There's an example I'd like to show from the scrapbook a.k.a. "green book", but I think it's more effective with images from the book. Unfortunately, I've reached my photo limit and can't figure out how to add image links from Google Drive. I'll try to figure it out if I can.

I understand having concerns about the cables. I don't think the diary disappearing is suspicious. If it were real, it certainly would have been something conspirators would want to conceal. The story of the emergency plane landing is documented and certainly appears consistent with the FBI looking for items in Ricky's possession. The scrapbook, I have to disagree with you on. I respect you and your work tremendously, and I'm very interested in your opinions on Roscoe White. But in my view the scrapbook is weird, and there's something about it that I don't think a person faking it would have added. I'll try to elaborate with an example in a separate post.

YouTube - “Michael Brownlow interviews B.W. (Bobby) Hargis Part 1 / 2” 2003 Uploaded by gbm hon 2022 B2fm

Sorry, I was just about to correct that.

Well, there was another diary produced after the first one disappeared, but it was immediately dismissed as a fake produced by Geneva. As I understand it, Ricky was the one who I.D'd this second diary as a fake. Wouldn't that argue for his honesty, rather than against it? And there are other aspects besides Roscoe's link to Oswald, Geneva's link to Ruby, and Roscoe's possession of a heretofore unknown third backyard picture. There's the high powered radio transmitter/receiver and hundreds of spent rifle shells found in Texas near the Mexico border, a place the White family had visited. There's also Roger Craig saying he saw Roscoe on the grassy knoll just after the assassination. I believe this is a important piece of evidence and I'm not sure why people are going out of their way to ignore it. It's also supported by the observations of Ed Hoffman, who reported seeing a man in a policeman's uniform behind the fence on the grassy knoll.

The motorcade was 5 minutes behind schedule. Oswald was seen on the first floor at 12:25 pm, the time the motorcade was scheduled to pass. The rifle was misidentified as a 7.65 Mauser by authorities, one of which had worked at a store selling rifles. The make and caliber of the rifle was also misidentified despite the fact that the Mannlicher Carcano had "Made Italy" and "6.5 Cal" engraved on it. Oswald's prints did not show up on the rifle until after his death. Nitrate tests on his cheek were negative. According to the official story, he was seen on the 2nd floor 2 minutes after the assassination, not sweaty, not out of breath, not panicked. And you think it's more credible than he was the assassin than not? The guy who stopped for a Coke after murdering the president, and the guy who went to the movies after murdering a cop. You and I must have very different definitions of the word "credibility."

JFK's head goes back and to the left, allegedly because of a shot from behind. What could be less credible than a violation of the basic laws of physics?

Three JFK's performing an autopsy on himself. Okay. How are these images enhancing our understanding of the truth?

Great work @Keven Hofeling and @Sandy Larsen .

I like your humor. It is both dry and clean.

This post left me in stitches.

Want to know a wild true fact? Look up Woody's mother's maiden name.

Imho, I don't think it's one answer that applies to all participants. Prior to the assassination, for the upper echelon the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs probably made the case for them that JFK was a "danger." After the assassination, I think many of them that weren't involved ahead of time went along with it believing it was a Soviet/Cuban plot, and that by assisting in covering it up they were helping the world avoid nuclear war.

You claim there are very simple and easy fixes to prevent AI from making up a false answer to a question, yet the answer it gave to a very simple question was still false. Why should we trust AI if the programmers can't already program in what you describe as simple and easy fail-safes that would say "I don't know" in a circumstance where it doesn't know an answer? According to you, the fix is so simple and easy that you can dismiss concerns about it in two sentences, and what I'm guessing are a few lines of code. Yet these fixes were not implemented. Are the programmers stupid? Is that really it? If code to avoid false answers is as simple and easy as you claim, why wasn't it already there? More importantly: Why is avoiding false answers not already a priority for AI? I'm no AI expert, but I fail to see how false answers help anyone. And you're not really inspiring confidence in overall AI programming if there exist super simple fixes that apparently didn't even occur to the programmers to add. In my opinion, false answers are just going to lead to more confusion, uncertainty, and wasted time. If we ask AI a complex question for which we can't independently verify the answer, how can we trust any answer that it gives? We just have to trust that the programmer got the programming right? Or do we have to comb through the code ourselves?

It's clear you want to believe in the potential of AI. I can't stop you. It will inevitably be used in research anyway. But the question asked on Saturday "Has Sunday's game been played yet?" is not a difficult one at all. Yet, the AI said three things: The game had been played already, the 49ers won it, and the exact score of the game. All three wrong. Not just wrong, but coming up with imaginary facts like the final score to support the incorrect answer. What if someone asks an AI to calculate the trajectory of a bullet and since it doesn't know, it just makes up an answer, including impressive extraneous information? Then we'll have people like us arguing over it for years because we assume the AI is better at complex calculations than we are, so it must likely be right. As I see it, AI wants to please. If it doesn't have an answer, it will try to give you one anyway. If AI is asked to scan a photo of the fence line for human looking figures, how do we know for certain it won't make them up, since it knows that's what we're looking for?

Do you have any medical experience of your own in observing and treating gunshot wounds in person? These people saw and treated gunshot wounds every day, and, in my opinion, it's a bit insulting to them to imply that they couldn't tell a bullet entrance wound from a fragment exit wound. And I'll never in my life understand why so many people on this forum are willing to believe the autopsy photos and x-rays. How many problems with them need to be pointed out before we reasonably start treating them with skepticism instead of the reflexive "I'm going to trust these over the witnesses observations" attitude that I seem to see here every day?

This is a very important damning account from two witnesses in the motorcade, and in my view strongly supports the assertion that there were shots fired from in front of presidential limousine.

The day before Superbowl 58, someone asked an AI chatbot for a prediction. The AI said it couldn't predict the game because, according to the AI, it had already been played, and that San Francisco won. It even gave the final score. I'm one of those people who thinks a wrong answer is worse than no answer, and it certainly seems that if AI doesn't know the correct answer to a question, it does it's level best to give you an answer anyway, regardless of accuracy - or even possibility.

"...and a large wound to the head, in the right posterior area." I'm sure Dr. Perry meant to say "top of the head" didn't he? I mean, a doctor who was there saying wildly inaccurate stuff like the large wound to the head was in the right posterior area... people might get the totally inaccurate idea that the large wound to the head was in the right posterior area. That would be silly. I sure hope someone who wasn't there and had no medical experience will correct the record and tell us all that Dr. Perry didn't say what he said and that he didn't see what he saw.

I don't think it's Jack White's work, but there's some discussion & photos of the C 2766 font discrepancy halfway at the link from where I sourced the original images of the rifle: http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/c2766.html