Denny Zartman

That is good news. I'm keeping my focus on what have in common. A Harris campaign canvasser came by my house today. I was glad to see them. In my opinion that's an encouraging sign.

I saw the Harris/Walz rally last night, watched some TV pundit analysis today, and read through comments on other political forums online. I'm not doing backflips over Walz. I have mixed feelings. It seems Shapiro would have been subject to the ugliest anti-Semitic attacks every day had he been the choice. On the flip side, it would have been nice for the Democrats to have Pennsylvania virtually in their pocket. So, in my view, it's a bit of a gamble not picking Shapiro. But so far the gambles have been paying off. (My personal ideas/preferences for political strategy are likely out-of-date anyway.) Walz is aligned with a few political positions that are important to me. He seems like a pretty decent speaker and he has "the cool teacher" energy. In some photos his resemblance to Steve Martin is striking. But I found the happy talk about his sharpshooting and hunting skills to be a turn off. That doesn't affect the cost of rent or the availability of affordable housing in America. I understand what the campaign is doing. They're attempting to outflank the conservatives on the gun issue by playing up Walz as a "gun guy." For all I know it may be a sound political strategy. A CNN pundit said Walz was chosen in part because he "reads Republican" and I can see why that would be a fair characterization. So perhaps he will have a little crossover appeal, knowing that even under the best conditions the VP candidate rarely has a significant effect on the election.

A Lone Nut book turned me into a Conspiracy Theorist. But, in my opinion, there comes a time to move on from entertaining a theory that holds no water. As I see it, there's nothing to be gained by going around the same old circles. The "Oswald did it" theory is about as useful as "Hickey did it" or "Oswald was trying to kill Connally." I believe those theories are not supported by the evidence. LN's are clearly welcome on this forum. In my opinion only one of them should have remained banned, because his initial banning was for egregious violation of forum rules - NOT because he held an LN opinion.

As usual, another good post by @Gil Jesus , who clearly knows his stuff. It seems to me simple common sense tells one that if there are two different types of ammunition found at a crime scene there were two different guns fired. Oswald is a guy who, according to the official story, got to Mexico and back using nothing but public transportation. Yet, in his most important getaway he can only go to a movie theater. Maybe it's just me, but a person sitting in a movie theater is not actively trying to "get away." And why would he want to get away anyway? Isn't this the crime that will impress his wife and put his name in the history books? Turn him from a "nobody" to a "somebody?" (This is the time when I point out that John Wilkes Booth broke his leg rushing to take credit for Lincoln's assassination. Yet we're supposed to believe Oswald wanted to write his name in the history books and impress his wife by... denying the crime with every breath.) You're right, it makes no sense at all. I can't dispute any of this. It's a great question, worthy of discussion. For example, if Litwin genuinely did not know Oswald was not the only building employee unaccounted for, that's okay. It's sort of a big error by someone trying to represent themselves as an expert on the subject, but whatever. Everyone makes mistakes. Litwin's refusal to acknowledge and correct it is another matter. As a result, it appears that his is less a quest for truth and more about pushing an agenda despite what the evidence shows.

Do you believe that it was a coincidence that Charles Nicoletti was murdered on the same day, and that it was also a coincidence that both men were due to testify to the HSCA?

Harris is now the Democratic Party nominee after the virtual roll call vote. She has also chosen Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate in 2024.

@Keven Hofeling is a quality member of this forum. Good work here, Keven.

As I see it, it could also be reasonably asked why any Lone Nut theorist stays on this forum. According to LN's, the case was solved in an hour, sixty years ago. Solved by cops that couldn't even correctly identify a rifle they held in their own hands. There was no formal roll call, but LN's would like you to believe it was so. Oswald was not the only building employee unaccounted for after the assassination, but LN's would like you to believe it was so.

Let me know if this will do: - It is apropos to remember that Givens, like Oswald, was missing from the Book Depository after the assassination. According to the verbatim transcript of the police radio log (CE 1974 p. 83) Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer called the dispatcher a few seconds after 1:46 p.m. and said: “We have a man that we would like to have you pass this on to CID (criminal investigation division) to see if we can pick this man up Charles Douglas Givens G i v e n s. He is a colored male… a porter that worked on this floor up here he has a police record and he left.” This entry was not included in an earlier edited transcript of the police radio log for reasons which are not clear. Inspector Sawyer testified about the alert for Givens on April 8th 1964: Sawyer: I put out another description on the colored boy that worked in that department. Belin: What do you mean the colored boy that worked in that depository? Sawyer: He is the one that had a previous record in the narcotics and he was supposed to have been a witness to the man being on that floor. He was supposed to have been a witness to Oswald being there. Belin: Would Charles Givens have been that boy? Sawyer: Yes, I think that is the name and I put out a description on him. Belin: How do you know he was supposed to be a witness on that? Sawyer: Somebody told me that. Somebody came to me with the information. And again that particular party whoever it was I don't know. I remember that a deputy sheriff came up to me who had been overtaking these affidavits that I sent them over there and he came over from the sheriff's office with a picture and a description of this colored boy and he said that he was supposed to have worked at the Texas Book depository and he was the one employee who was missing or that he was missing from the building. He wasn't accounted for and that he was supposed to have some information about the man that did the shooting… (6H 321-322) Accessories After The Fact, by Sylvia Meagher, 1967, Pg. 67 - Tippit was slain at 1:15 or 1:16 p.m. according to the commission. Why then did the Dallas Police want Oswald at least 30 minutes before Tippit was shot? At a press conference held a few hours after Oswald's death on November 24th district attorney Wade explained why Oswald's description went out so precipitately: “A police officer immediately after the assassination ran in the building and saw this man (Oswald) in a corner and started to arrest him but the manager of the building said that he was an employee and was all right. Every other employee was located but this defendant of the company. A description and name of him went out by police to look for him.” However the commission denied that Oswald's name was dispatched by the police: “the police never mentioned Oswald's name in their broadcast descriptions before his arrest.” Captain WP Gannaway the officer in charge of the Dallas Police department special Service bureau offered a similar explanation. He said that Oswald's description was broadcast because he was missing from a "roll call” of Book Depository employees. “He was the only one who didn't show up and couldn't be accounted for” Gannaway said. This attempt to explain why Oswald was wanted implies both that there was a comprehensive roll call in the building and that Oswald was the only person unaccounted for just after 12:30 p.m. . In the first place there was no such roll call and in the second place Oswald was not the only employee absent from the building after the assassination. Out of a total of 75 persons employed in the building 48 were outside at 12:30 and 5 had not reported for work that day. Others left the building almost immediately after hearing the shots. Many employees were not allowed to enter the building after the assassination and thus were absent when the police search began. In fact even among the eight employees known to have been on the 6th floor earlier that day Oswald was not “the only one who didn't show up and couldn't be accounted for.” Rush To Judgment, by Mark Lane, 1967 Fawcett Crest first edition, pgs 67-68.

It seems to me the fingerprints of intelligence were on Oswald. How can anyone possibly believe that the public record of his life faithfully represents the real man?

Good points.

In one of his books Litwin claimed Oswald was the only one missing from the TSBD after the assassination. When I called him out on that here on the forum, he didn't acknowledge his error, but said Oswald was the only one missing who mattered. As if anyone at that point could have possibly known which missing employees mattered and which ones didn't. How can anyone take Litwin seriously?

Good to know creepy sleepy rapist felon Donald Trump is no better. Hopefully the supporters of creepy sleepy rapist felon Donald Trump will hear this.

If that's true, every secret Service agent that allowed Trump to take his photo op should be fired.

Who cares? And what's the point of "Sleepy" and "Creepy?" Biden's no longer a candidate. May we also talk about the other party's nominee that bragged of sexual assault and dozed off at his own felony trial?

Good work on Lee Bowers in this thread @Joe Bauer . Clearly he was among the most important witnesses. As @Robert Reeves noted, why would Bowers have to live under a "cloud of constraint" if it was really just nutty old Oswald acting alone and Bowers saw nothing of significance?

Good post, thanks @W. Niederhut. I did not know that information about CIA Staff D, which appears to show a solid connection between Lee Oswald and William King Harvey.

Maybe he wasn't "suicided", but if he wasn't, wouldn't you agree this seems to be one hell of a coincidence? <quote> Charles Nicoletti was a leading figure in the Mafia in Chicago. He worked under Tony Accardo and Sam Giancana and got the reputation as an effective contract killer. He was also involved in the CIA plots to overthrow Fidel Castro in Cuba. According to James Files, Nicoletti was one of the gunmen who took part in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. On 29th March, 1977, Charles Nicoletti was murdered in Chicago. He had been shot three times in the back of the head. George De Mohrenschildt died the same day. Both men were due to appear before the Select House Committee on Assassinations where they were to be asked about their involvement in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. </quote> https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKnicoletti.htm

For the 2024 Democratic Veepstakes, I'm now hearing Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has emerged as a contender. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has also been suggested, and Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear's profile continues to rise in the media. I don't know how much of it is real or campaign psy ops, but Trump's pick for VP, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance is getting heaping helps of criticism at the moment.

If we're going to evaluate Trump's appeal and chances in 2024 and use 2016 as one of the yardsticks, I think we should also consider a number of other factors. Yes, Clinton lost the 2016 election via the electoral college, but it was not a blowout victory for Trump. Clinton won the popular vote after nearly a solid quarter century of right wing media painting her as worse than Satan. In contrast, Trump didn't really have much negative publicity outside of New York until 2016. Indeed, Trump was welcome on talk shows, hosted "Saturday Night Live", and was regularly portrayed on his national reality TV game shows "The Apprentice" and "Celebrity Apprentice" as an all-powerful, wealthy figure everyone reflexively kow-towed to. Trump lost the electoral college in 2020, and lost the popular vote a second time. A majority of voters did not want him the first time, and nothing he did in four years as president made a majority of voters want him for a second term. Trump has spent the last eight years doing absolutely nothing to try to appeal beyond his base. He's a known quantity even more than in 2020. In 2016 and 2020 he faced opponents that didn't generate a lot of excitement. Trump was facing an even less exciting version of Biden in 2024 and the polls were still fairly close. Now, Trump's facing a candidate that is, so far, generating excitement. Imho, the increase in voter registrations alone should concern Trump's campaign. It's doubtful young people are registering to vote for the first time because they're suddenly flocking to Trump. And honestly, Trump himself is not the same candidate that he was in 2016. Some of the addresses I saw him give months ago sounded (to me) like he was reading them off the teleprompter for the first time. Now he's saying "The Silence of the Lambs" is a true story. He has zero discipline and would rather riff and do half-assed stand up comedy than stay on message and stick to a stump speech. I feel quite confident that Harris will have much more discipline and focus in her campaign, with a minimum of time referring to fictional characters as being real.

Well, one could say it's just a rally and not a policy speech. Punchy lines and sound bites are effective in that setting. The last thing anyone wants to hear is her drone on about legislation at her first rally as the presumptive presidential nominee. But I understand your desire for more substance. Hopefully there will be a few new specific policy proposals soon and she'll be able to shift to speaking to them. And I have to disagree a bit. I thought she showed plenty of personality in her speech yesterday and the one today in Indianapolis.

CNN now reporting that Harris will pick her VP in two weeks or less.

Should we have a general 2024 election discussion thread pinned instead? @Ron Bulman @W. Niederhut President Joe Biden just addressed the nation regarding his decision to step aside as the 2024 Democratic Nominee. I thought it was a good speech, and immediate reactions seem to be positive. I'm sure he's going to get much praise and tribute at the Democratic convention. It's a bit surreal how the Democrats have made lemonade from their lemons. 'cause those were some bitter lemons, let me tell ya.

The footnote in High Treason sourced Forgive My Grief Vol 2. I can try to check that later. I think I have a PDF of all those books. I can't imagine where Simkin got that quote, unless it was from the earlier edition of High Treason.

Looking up Lee Bowers in the index to the Berkley paperback edition 1990, leads me to pg 135: <quote> Bowers died at age 41 in a one-car crash near Midlothian Texas on August 9th 1966. The medical examiner said that Bowers was in some kind of a "strange shock" at the time of the accident. <\quote> Groden & Livingstone's cited source for this is Penn Jones, Jr.'s "Forgive My Grief Volume 2", pg. 27.