Jump to content
The Education Forum

Denny Zartman

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Denny Zartman

  1. "The Russian Speaking Woman" If it's not Marina, who is it? Ruth Paine?
  2. I'd say that's a positive review. They couldn't find much to criticize, it seems. It will be interesting to see the full four hour version.
  3. Very interesting. Thank you for sharing. I look forward to reading the book.
  4. The fact that a police car pulled up in front of Oswald's rooming house, honked lightly twice, and then left, makes me think that you're not reaching very far at all on this particular point, at least.
  5. Definitely. Remember that the Paines were too hot to be named in JFK.
  6. I see the Daily Beast is trashing it. Their review is for members only, so I wasn't able to read beyond the first two paragraphs, but they certainly didn't like it at all.
  7. That is fantastic, Jim, congratulations are in order. Will the 4 hour version eventually be available for viewing someday?
  8. Goldberg is an EGOT winner; Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and Tony, so she is part of a select group.
  9. Isn't it funny how the closer we look, the farther away things seem to be? It's like mysteries inside of mysteries inside of mysteries, just like Ferrie said it was. I don't know what to make of it. This to me was what I had always considered the third wallet, so the news of the other two wallets is brand new to me. Obviously Oswald was up to his ears in skullduggery. It sure seems to me that Marguerite is steeped in suspicious activity as well. Very interesting article, thank you for sharing.
  10. And @Jim Hargrove as soon as my sweet, sweet h&l cash comes in, I'll see about getting us some matching "H&L Squad" jackets, maybe with a tasteful little "woo woo" embroidered on the right breast. What do you think? We have to look good on bowling night.
  11. I never thought that I would ever achieve such "importance" in the JFK assassination discussion as to deserve being called out by name in a thread title. I suppose I should consider that something of a compliment, since I am a nobody. I'm not even a strong supporter of the h&l theory; I just can't dismiss it. I only speak for myself, but the reason I personally have not responded to Robert and Jeremy's posts on the Harvey & Lee thread is because I have them on ignore. I have read many of their previous posts on the subject and engaged them briefly, and I have come to the conclusion that they have nothing useful to contribute to the conversation. Perhaps I am wrong on that. I trust the readers of this forum to decide for themselves. I also find it somewhat arrogant when someone uses terms like "h&l squad" and "h&l brain trust" and "woo woo" (whatever that is supposed to mean) to describe others and their arguments and then expects those same people to respond to their every post as if it were an honest-to-goodness good faith debate. The h&l opponents ask for evidence, but it is clear nothing will satisfy them. Any evidence that is presented to them is summarily rejected and immediately followed by the claim that the h&l supporters have not presented any evidence at all. Rinse. Repeat. I'm tempted to repeat my reasoning and the specific evidence that I find compelling here, but what's the point? The h&l opponents here keep saying over and over and over again that there is no evidence for h&l and that h&l has been conclusively disproven long ago. Yet they just can not stand the idea that anyone, even a stupid, insignificant nobody such as myself, could possibly think otherwise. Even though they repeatedly state that h&l has been conclusively, absolutely discredited beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are here day after day continuously arguing against it as if it were their job. They are even driven to start new threads and call out their opponents by name all over a subject they repeatedly call ridiculous and conclusively disproven long ago. They demand debate from those they repeatedly mock and demand evidence that we all know they will dismiss.
  12. I'd like to read more on Bratton, if possible. If it's true ( Bratton overhearing Marguerite speaking a language that wasn't English, Spanish, or German), it certainly seems significant.
  13. I just watched the 2020 film "The Courier", which is about a businessman recruited by the CIA to spy on the Soviets during the run-up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I couldn't help but think of Ekdahl.
  14. I do not think Milteer just made a lucky guess. I've often thought that the actual shooters were likely to be motivated more by ideology rather than money or professionalism. I'd imagine that most professional assassins would have realized that they too would be "removed" soon after the assassination and therefore be reluctant to get involved for fear of their own personal safety.
  15. John Edward Pic: - - - https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/pic_j.htm - Robert Edward Lee Oswald: https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_r.htm
  16. Three observations about people not believing in the H&L theory because of the complexity involved: First, in my opinion it's not that complex, at least not at the beginning. It just involves some cold hearts and long-term logistical planning. The 2018 documentary film "Three Identical Strangers" demonstrated a real-life twin experiment (in that case triplets) that dated back to their babyhood. Private scientific experiments and projects are often preceded by military ones. Second, we're trying to reverse-engineer the entire "Oswald Project", and then criticize the logic behind it. We truly don't know if the plan was changed at some point or points in time, or what all the intended goals were. Finally, it seems to me that not believing in it because it's unnecessarily complex when there was a much easier alternative is akin to not believing in animation because it's far easier and more cost-effective to point a camera at an actor for an hour and come away with an hour of footage than it is to pay a dozen or more people to work for weeks sitting at drawing boards drawing and coloring every frame. As John Butler pointed out above, the concept of lookalike spies was not at all a new one in 1963, and in my opinion it doesn't seem to be completely out of the realm of possibility that there could have possibly been a relatively sophisticated attempt at creating a better lookalike spy starting in the early 1940's.
  17. I think you're being generous with that assessment, John. I can't see any situation where naval intelligence wouldn't be working hand in hand with the engineers making the submarine detection equipment. Of course, I am sure there are those here who will insist that Ekdahl was just mopping floors. Excellent post and relevant analysis, in my opinion.
  18. You admit that multiple mysterious addresses are indeed connected to Harvey and Lee, which is what we're discussing at the moment. If you don't want to find it suspicious, that's your call. But, by your own admission, there were mysterious multiple addresses for Ekdahl, and the existence of mysterious multiple addresses for Harvey and Lee is what we are debating at this point. I guess you concede that point? Ekdahl was a well-paid professional who just happened to have no fixed address for ten years and just happened to work for a big company that couldn't or wouldn't reveal the records of where he worked in a ten-year period. Again, very convenient. Where did the sources regarding Fort Worth come from anyway, and why wasn't that information provided by Ebasco? It was just luck, I suppose. The information just happened to fall anonymously from the sky. Information that was apparently floating around freely in Fort Worth, but not recorded in the New York City office records of Ebasco. Of course Marguerite would have jumped on her good fortune. Marrying a well-paid professional man who endlessly travels? Sign her up! And think about lucky Ekdahl, working at cities all over the country, and just happening to fall for a single mom of three in Fort Worth. I'd say he got lucky too. She's quite the catch.
  19. Multiple mysterious addresses are the crux of this particular discussion, and it's convenient that Texas single mom Marguerite just happened to meet and marry a well-paid professional with just happened to have no fixed address and who just happened to work for a big company that didn't keep complete employment records on its most well-paid employees (yet saw fit to microfilm the little they did manage to retain.)
  20. I agree, Jamey. It seems that no matter how many books I read or shows I watch, there is always something new to learn. And some things only reveal themselves to be relevant when placed in context, so even things I learned long ago can surprise me later with a fresh significance.
  21. Great work, Calvin. It did sound too good to be true. It's too bad, because it was an interesting read that seemed to make a few plausible connections.
  • Create New...