Jump to content
The Education Forum

Denny Zartman

Members
  • Posts

    595
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Denny Zartman

  1. There are more recordings of Robert's questioning than Lee's.
  2. Probably not, but truth is its own reward. Something unjust doesn't become just with the passage of time, and the significance of the injustice doesn't diminish because it might not be topically relevant at some future moment.
  3. Does anyone know if there is a map showing all the locations of the Tippit witnesses? Part of my continuing fascination with this case is that it seems like every corner has a mystery. And the closer one looks, the farther away the truth seems to be. To me, the official story itself reeks of conspiracy. But if Oswald wasn't Tippit's killer, who was? And why did he (or they) do it? I believe Clemons and Wright, but accepting their stories as true just brings more questions, not answers.
  4. I admire Acquilla Clemons. All witnesses who spoke about events that conflicted with the official story had courage, but in my opinion Ms. Clemons had the most courage of them all. According to Mark Lane, she only spoke to him because she had recognized him as one of the Freedom Riders. Frank Wright is such a huge puzzle. I was not aware that his wife called for an ambulance. If so, it seems to me that would tend to support Frank's story.
  5. I'd guess most every person on this forum has met someone who is well-educated, clear-minded, logical and literate who also just knee-jerk responded with incredulity when someone said they believe Oswald didn't act alone. I'd imagine the first time many people are ever exposed to a conversation about the JFK assassination is in the context of "conspiracy theorists are nutters." It's a cliche at this point. Most average folks have never read even one book on the subject and have been conditioned from a young age to associate JFK conspiracy theorists with UFO's and the Bermuda Triangle and all that. They just accept as a truism that Oswald acted alone and that any conspiracy theories are wholly unsupported by the facts. It's disappointing that someone working under the Washington Post banner apparently does not know the current opinion of the government is that there probably was a conspiracy. I think it's essential to read about the case and come up with your own questions. Relying on conventional wisdom doesn't get one very far. It makes coming up with an online quiz easier, though.
  6. In my opinion this is not the forum for this type of thread. It has nothing to do with the JFK assassination. Tucker Carlson is a partisan political commentator; he is not a news anchor nor is he a JFK scholar. In one thread Benjamin is decrying the government/corporate media, and in this thread he's waving the FOX news flag, calling them "often the best" of all these terrible mainstream news organizations and hoping others will agree. Is there no other place online for this type of unrelated, off-topic discussion? If we absolutely must have to have non-JFK discussions on this section of the forum, could we at least keep them on the "Inevitable end result..." thread?
  7. Thank you for the update, Anthony. Much appreciated.
  8. That's excellent. Thanks for the link. Sounds like a fascinating topic.
  9. Your PDF quotes Carolyn Arnold as stating to the FBI: "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time President Kennedy was shot." This is irrelevant because Kennedy was shot at 12:30 PM and we are discussing who Carolyn saw and where she saw them at 12:25 PM. The FBI statement you quote makes no mention of when or where she last saw Oswald. Arnold is on record saying that she saw Oswald as she was leaving to go watch the Kennedy motorcade. The first time reported by the FBI was a "fleeting glimpse" of someone she "thought" was Oswald sometime between 12:00 and 12:15 PM. That time was later clarified to be 12:25 PM. She confirmed this 12:25 PM time in the PDF you cited, as well as in an interview with the Dallas Morning News in 1978. http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/B Disk/Bronson Charles/Item 27.pdf According to the Dallas Morning News on November 20, 1963, Kennedy's motorcade was scheduled to arrive at the Trade Mart at 12:30 PM on November 22. https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1364.pdf If Kennedy was scheduled to arrive at the Trade Mart at 12:30 PM, why is Oswald reported sitting in a booth on the second floor of the TSBD having lunch at 12:25 PM? According to this "Oswald as false flag shooter" theory, Oswald is the single most important element in the entire professional/paramilitary operation, both in the fake attempt and in the actual assassination. Again, wouldn't confirming that Oswald was in position be absolutely essential information to all the other conspirators?
  10. "Murder In Dealey Plaza" 2000 Edited by James Fetzer, from Ira David Wood III's "22 November 1963: A Chronology" PG 29: "12:25 PM Depository employee Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald on the first floor near the front door of the building." PG 30: "12:29 PM ... THE MOTORCADE TURNS ONTO HOUSTON FROM MAIN (The motorcade is now five minutes behind schedule.)"
  11. The possibility that Oswald washed his face or that the nitrates came off in his sweat or in some other unknown way is not evidence. The negative test for nitrates on his cheek is evidence. If there were police photos of a wet sink and bar of soap with suds on it at Oswald's rooming house, or of a sweaty shirt in Oswald's possession that had nitrates on it, then that would be evidence. The mere possibility that he washed his face or sweated it out is not evidence. The possibility should not be considered as having equal evidentiary value as an actual negative test for nitrates on the cheek. Benjamin may hand wave away evidence, but I'm fairly certain a court would not. I'm puzzled why anyone would ignore exculpatory evidence anyway. Cognitive bias, I suppose. We get tied to our pet theories and cling to them, even if they are contradicted by the evidence. It's very surprising that we are discussing an assassination that apparently involved extensive pre-planning, preparation, and co-ordination with names like Angleton, Harvey, Lansdale, Hunt, ect. and a cover up that went up immediately, reached to all branches of the government, the top of the FBI, the top of the CIA, and resulted in such a mess that sixty years later we don't even know if Oswald could drive, and we're all seriously entertaining the thought that the whole event relied on one guy's ability to run and superhuman acting ability, a guy who for some unknown reason wasn't even in position at the scheduled time, and who the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, indicates that he hadn't fired a rifle that day. In this "Oswald as a false flag shooter" scenario, wouldn't the other riflepersons need to know if Oswald was in position before the motorcade arrived? Doesn't the whole thing fall apart if he isn't there in the sixth floor window as a shooter? What purpose could it serve to have Oswald wait until beyond the scheduled time of JFK's arrival before getting into his needed position? To give him a semblance of an alibi? Well, gosh, good job there, since we're still arguing about it six decades later.
  12. Wouldn't confirming Oswald's readiness and presence in the sixth floor window also be vital to the other shooters? Indeed, every other element of the operation?
  13. The question is "If Oswald was intended to be a shooter why was he not in position at the time the motorcade was scheduled to pass?" If he was the single most important element in this entire operation, why was he not in position and ready to shoot at the time Kennedy's motorcade was scheduled to pass by the building?
  14. Why wasn't he in position at the time the motorcade was scheduled to pass?
  15. If Oswald fired a rifle from that window, why weren't nitrates found in his cheek? According to Mark Lane, that negative nitrate cheek test would have been court admissible evidence that Oswald had not fired a rifle that day.
  16. If Oswald was intended to be the single most important element in this professional false flag operation, why was he not in position at the time Kennedy's motorcade was scheduled to pass by? Addendum: Would a shooter who was not just a key element in the entire scheme, but THE single most important element, not only be in position at the time Kennedy's motorcade was scheduled to pass, but wouldn't the shooter's readiness have also been confirmed by someone else in the operation?
  17. I'm just going by what you've posted here. I'd be willing to look at his evidence and reasoning, or read it if you'd like to summarize it, but based on what you have posted I still have some questions. Dr. Mantik's conclusions on the front neck wound and back wound seem to conflict with my understanding of the evidence. As I understand it, it seems that almost all of the doctors at Parkland who saw the anterior neck wound in person said it was consistent with a bullet entrance wound. The doctors at Bethesda, while not having the same experience in treating gunshot wounds as the doctors at Parkland had, nevertheless saw Kennedy's back wound, probed it with a finger and found it to be shallow, unsuccessfully attempted to track it through Kennedy's body with flexible metal probes, and actively discussed among themselves where the bullet went. After calling Parkland and learning about the discovery of CE 399 in the Dallas hospital there, the Bethesda doctors concluded the bullet that caused the back wound had fallen out during heart massage attempts to save Kennedy. If the anterior neck wound was not caused by a bullet fired from in front of Kennedy, why then did the doctors in Parkland say it appeared to be a bullet entrance wound? For what specific reason should we believe the Parkland doctors were mistaken in their observations? If the back wound was caused by shrapnel, what shrapnel was coming from the northeast toward JFK's back? I know of no reports of bullets striking the rear of the limo or striking the street behind the limo. Or does Dr. Mantik conclude the back wound came from another direction? Why specifically should we believe the back wound was not as a result of a bullet entering from the rear?
  18. I don't doubt Vox's experiment or their honesty. I think the error with the Minox and Reflex cameras is fairly significant and makes me not put a huge amount of faith in their other claims, but I do think it was just an error. Still, the mystery of the back yard photos persists. I would have liked them to address the white silhouette "cutout" backyard photo, and how it was possible that a third photo pose ended up in the possession of Dallas policeman Roscoe White and not in the official evidence files. Marina and Marguerite discussed destroying the copy in their possession before the cops found it. How did Marina not know there were other copies floating around? Who developed the pictures, where did they do it? How many copies were made? How many different poses were taken? Who gave an inscribed copy to George De Mohrenschildt, and why? If it was Oswald, then why would he deny the crime and the legitimacy of the photos themselves? The Warren Commission declined to make Oswald's lack of mental health part of their report, but who other than a delusional person would claim they could prove legitimate photos to be fakes? Photos that he apparently was developing himself? Photos that seem to have no other purpose than to tie Oswald to the weapons and Russian politics. How many times in his life has Oswald posed for pictures with weapons, outside of his time in the military? I've also read that the two Russian language papers held in the photos were of opposing political philosophies, as if someone in Russia held up a copy of National Review and a copy of The Nation at the same time and tried to present that as a coherent political motivation. Why would someone do that? What message does Oswald send by posing for a picture with those papers in one hand while also holding the rifle that killed the president in the other and having the handgun that killed the policeman on his hip? And here's another thing I don't think anyone has addressed: Oswald's famous police-killing handgun was so important to his plans that he made sure to include it in his pictures, yet on the day of the assassination, he left this handgun at home. If he could smuggle a rifle into the TSBD, he surely could have taken a handgun as well. How did he not think that he might have had a need for the handgun during his initial escape? He felt the need for it later. Oswald made sure to have the handgun in his picture, to pose at least three ways with it, to order or develop, on his own, multiple copies, to even go so far as to write a note on one copy and give it to his only friend. Why then, on assassination day, would he leave the handgun behind as if it were an afterthought? Actually, saying "he left it behind" is being generous. I mean, the handgun wasn't even at the place Oswald had spent the previous night.
  19. That's very interesting that you actually owned one. Did you have to manually change the focus setting? Was the type of film easily available? While interesting, I don't think the video is a must see. I think the main takeaway is that the technology of CGI seems to support that the shadow on the nose and the body shadow on the ground are consistent with each other. I was curious about the conflict between the cameras. I only now saw that there's another thread about this video. Sorry for the duplicate thread!
  20. All the best to you, Pat. Thank you for everything you do for the forum and the research community. It is greatly appreciated.
  21. I have a hard time buying this conclusion from Dr. Mantik.
  22. https://www.vox.com/videos/22660913/jfk-assassination-superimposed-lee-harvey-oswald-darkroom - A video essay on the backyard photos was just posted by vox.com as part of their history and photography series "Darkroom". What was new to me was the claim that it has been scientifically proven that the backyard photos were taken with Oswald's own mini Minox spy camera, which as I understand was usually held up to the face when taking pictures. Isn't that a contradiction between Marina's claim that it was a camera you held around chest or waist level and looked down into the viewfinder?
  23. Between the revolver, the bullets, the shells, and the star witness Helen Markham, the prosecutors in Oswald's trial would have had quite a job ahead of them. The thing about the Tippit shooting for me is that the official version of events is just too far fetched to believe and on its own indicates suspicious activity. At least that's how I've always seen it.
×
×
  • Create New...