Denny Zartman

It doesn't automatically make it false, as you well know. Why are you polluting the forum with nonsense? So, yes, you believe it wasn't Ruby that called because the report that it was Ruby that called came out too late for you to personally accept as a fact. Like you would ever have been convinced even if it came out earlier. Would you care to go down the list of witnesses who said things in the '60's and the '70's that were contrary to the lone nut theory and you can then acknowledge that they're all true by virtue of the fact they were said before the 1980's? Give me a break. And you're going to lecture us on critical thinking?

The two honks from the car horn is a dead giveaway too.

I'm sorry that happened and I hope you're feeling better now, @Joe Bauer.

citizenkaneapplause.gif

It's totally understandable, at least it is from my perspective. That's why I've begun refraining from posting here often. It's genuinely difficult for me to continue arguing with LN's over the most basic stuff. I feel like I've been doing it for years because I have. I once went round and round and wasted a day arguing with someone who thought Oswald was trying to kill Connolly. It gets frustrating at times. And I personally believe some LN's seem to be doing it as an intellectual exercise. I'd like to know what actually happened that day and why, and it's hard to arrive at that conclusion by constantly arguing with people who think the case was satisfactorily solved in a couple of hours sixty years ago.

Many people, when faced with a tough decision, make a list of pros and cons. For the government (and anyone sitting in the big chair who would be considering releasing these documents) the list is long on the cons and the pros has exactly one item: the truth. I recognize any of us here would vehemently argue that the truth outweighs an infinite list of cons. I myself would agree. But, unfortunately, reality shows that even someone like Trump, who would gladly burn it all down, says "no thanks" when confronted with the CIA's presentation about the evidence. In my view, that says something. It's essentially the question "Should we release these secret photos?" and learning the photos are horrible beyond imagination. Fortunately, through the process of elimination we know for certain that, whatever it is, it's not Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone, it's not Carlos Marcello, and it's not George Hickey. If it were any of those three, or even if it was Fidel Castro, they'd release all the files in a New York Minute. Every single person reading these words knows it's true. Actually, I'm surprised they kept anything incriminating. I figured those files would have been disappeared long, long ago or never committed to paper in the first place.

You really know your stuff @David Josephs, thanks for all your hard work and for sharing it here with us.

My observations: One: It's bipartisan. Whether you're Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton or anyone else, they all agree that it will do no one in the government any good now to reveal the truth about what happened then. It's all downside. They all get a presentation, and at the end of it they all reach the same conclusion. Trump by far would have been the individual most likely to defy them and release everything even if just out of sheer spite, but even he was convinced. Two: They're not still keeping things secret sixty years later because it was a lone nut, or because the Mafia did it, or because a secret service agent made a whoopsie. You literally don't have to know a single thing about the JFK assassination to see that.

Ol' "Four Wallets" Oswald. Why would anyone suspect Oswald was ever being impersonated? He was just your everyday average guy with four wallets. I didn't know the Irving wallet was the only one surviving in evidence. Of course they don't want to have to explain more than one wallet, much less four. It's amazing to me that anyone can take even a casual look at stuff like this and not think something suspicious was going on.

I'm sure that it's just a funny coincidence that Oswald apparently had a total of $183.87 in cash on the morning of November 22. I wonder if they found $5.13 at the Tippit scene? 🤔

Are the personal insults necessary? First it's the constant general characterization of anyone who disagrees as "loons" and other derogatory terms. Now there are direct personal insults to other forum members by name. I just don't understand why the moderators on this forum tolerate this kind of behavior. Is this really how we're expected to approach discussion here? By constantly insulting and demeaning the other side? Now by name? As I see it, this is not an argument in good faith. Calling someone an "agenda-driven huckster" and then expecting a genuine discussion as if the personal animus wasn't obvious is insulting. It's almost as if some people are on this forum not for honest discussion in good faith but rather with the sole purpose of actively trying to provoke responses from specific individuals. That, to me, seems like an agenda.

It's thought-provoking. Didn't Robert say he wouldn't have recognized the kid in the zoo photo as his brother? Or was he speaking about the Oswald in the leafleting footage? Either way, it's an odd thing for anyone to say.

.

What point are you trying to make with this thread?

I could be mistaken, but I believe that version is missing pages 37, 38, and 68 through 80. I should let @James DiEugenio know that the PDF's I sent him are also incomplete. While they do have 37, 38, and 68 through 77, it ends at page 81 also, so Appendix A (interview with Darrell Tomlinson) is incomplete. Also no other appendixes other than the first page of appendix A (if there are any others) are included.

"Mrs. Markham, who is an utter screwball..." - Joseph Ball, Warren Commission lawyer, December 4, 1964

Yes. The single bullet theory ends there.

Hi Jim, I tried to send you a direct message, but for some reason the forum wouldn't let me. Anyway, I have two PDF's that I think have the full "The Bastard Bullet" between them. Let me know i you'd like them and I'll send them your way.

From what I've read, the JFK assassination made the Beatles afraid to come to America. They genuinely thought they would be in danger the minute they stepped out in public. I believe it is also on the record that Paul McCartney offered to compose a score for Mark Lane's film Rush To Judgement.

I've told this story before and I'm going to tell it again. When I've been on other online public discussion groups and the topic of the JFK assassination has come up, there are always gun enthusiasts who know nothing about the assassination but never fail to chime in and show off their vast knowledge of all things firearm. But, whenever I ask them how much ammo they have on hand at that particular moment, and if it wasn't unusual that LHO (a person allegedly owning and regularly practicing with a rifle) had no ammunition at any of his residences, their response is... silence. I've never once had a reply.

On one side, you have Conspiracy Theorists who are trying to study, research, and solve the crime. On the other side, you have the Lone Nutters who think the case was solved in an hour sixty years ago. But the LN's keep posting here every day like it's their job. I think the LN's treat "discussion" on this forum as an intellectual exercise or a parlor game to pass the time. The LN's have made up their minds long ago, and I guess it's fun for them to keep arguing the same points over and over. Whenever they do manage to finally be cornered in a specific detail suggesting conspiracy that they can't counter (as they recently have been with the oil-free alleged rifle wrapping paper) they just say they don't care and merrily go on repeating the CT's have presented zero evidence and are all just crazy or in a cult or something. Why bother? It's not a good-faith debate or discussion on their part. For them, countering conspiracy arguments is like a tennis player standing in front of a ball machine. For them it's fun to try and hit back as many balls as they can, but if a few get by it's no big deal. For them, it's the knocking down that's fun. Meanwhile, most folks realize the implications of a crucial piece of evidence having a seriously suspicious aspect about it. They don't ignore it like a tennis ball. My view would be just "agree to disagree." They've invested too much time developing their online personas as a solid LN's to ever concede any point on anything. And there are so many points that, if conceded, would bring the whole Lone Nut theory crashing down immediately. Then the onus would be on the LN's to explain why they were oblivious to it this whole time.

I just finished watching the interview. It was very good. There were a lot of topics addressed succinctly. Well done. Thanks for sharing it here @James DiEugenio . We're fortunate to be on the forum with experts like yourself. I appreciate it.

This is what is so frustrating about "debate" on this forum. Either Oswald was impersonated in the weeks leading up to the JFK assassination (which is a screaming indicator of conspiracy) or he was impersonated before it was possible that those impersonations would be linked specifically to the JFKA (as evidenced by the J. Edgar Hoover memo, which means there was something rotten going on about the identity of "Lee Harvey Oswald" before the JFKA.) Or... it was both. If it was both, then in my view a person can't totally discount the possibility of the Harvey and Lee theory as being possible. In addition to @Bob Ness 's story about Star Gate, one could also point to the book "The Men Who Stare At Goats" as good examples of how far the government would go in the name of espionage. Finally, I must always point to the recent documentary "Three Identical Strangers" as evidence that separating twins for nefarious purposes is not a difficult feat to accomplish.

@David Josephs Wow. You are knocking it out of the park with your research here. Thank you for putting in so much time and effort, and for sharing your knowledge of the case with us all.

Documents about the assassination are still being kept secret for national security reasons. How could Hickey accidentally firing his rifle in 1963 affect national security in 2023?